CAR_Public/170216.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


           Thursday, February 16, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 34



                            Headlines

ADUPS TECHNOLOGY: Faces Two Class Actions Over Software
ALABAMA: Lawyers Call for More Prison Suicide Prevention Measures
ALDRIDGE PITE: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Moskovits" Suit
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Faces Class Action Over Collection Calls
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Recognition of Seniority Sought in "Bakos" Case

AMERICAN AIRLINES: LAX Workers File Wage Class Action
AMERICAN BLINDS: Faces Suit Over TCPA Violations
AMERICAN INT'L: NY Settles Securities Fraud Suit v. Ex-CEO
AMERITANIA 54TH: "Bechar" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
APOLLO EDUCATION: 6th Cir. Affirms Arbitration in "Aldrich" Suit

APOLLO EDUCATION: Awaits Approval of Merger Suit Settlement
APOLLO EDUCATION: Continues to Defend "Lomingkit" Class Suit
APPCO: More Videos Emerge in Workers' Abuse Class Action
ARBY'S: Credit Union Files Data Breach Class Action
ARIZONA: Must Defend Against Suit Over Motor Vehicle Policy

AUSTRALIA: Peninsula Link Camera Speed Calculation Challenged
BATS GLOBAL: Files More Info to Moot Kim's Disclosure Claims
BELLAMY'S: Bell Potter Clients Mull Class Action
CANADA: Estabrooks Sexual Abuse Class Action V. St. John Okayed
CANADA: Will Back Off On Judge's '60s Scoop Ruling

CANADA: To Discontinue Third Party Claim in Flood Class Action
CANADA: WSIB Faces Class Action Over Unfair Benefit Cuts
CANADIAN HOCKEY: Judge Orders Franchises to Unseal Fin'l Records
CAPITAL WIND: Law Firm Mulls Class Action Over Currandooley Fire
CARL KARCHER: Hit with Antitrust Class Action

CARMAX INC: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suits in Calif.
CHICAGO, IL: Forces Subcontractors Into Arbitration Over Disputes
CHICAGO, IL: Court Denies Appeal From Class Certification
CMRE FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Collection Calls
CVS PHARMACY: Suit to Proceed After Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss

CVS PHARMACY: Vitamin C Made in USA Labeling Class Action Tossed
DEJA VU SERVICES: Injunction Bid in "Jane Doe 1" Suit Granted
DITECH FINANCIAL: "Scally" Suit Precluded by Bankruptcy Discharge
DOREL JUVENILE: Gathering Details Following Costco Car Seats Suit
DUPONT: Settles WV, Ohio PFOA Class Action for $671 Million

DURHAM SCHOOL: Wants School Bus Crash Class Action Dismissed
EATON CORP: Denial of Class Cert. Bid in Antitrust Suit Affirmed
ELEFTHERIA RESTURANT: "Chuisaca" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid OT, Tips
ENERGY TRANSFER: Harwood Feffer Probing Claims Over Sunoco Deal
ESPANOLA EQUITIES: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Vargas" Suit Says

FORD CANADA: To Settle All Litigations on PowerStroke Engines
FORD MOTOR: NCC Receives Around 100 Kuga Fire Complaints
GALENA BIOPHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE: Del. Ch. Dismisses "Green" Suit
GENERAL GROWTH: Court Tosses With Prejudice "Pezzoli" Class Suit

GEORGIA: Plaintiff's Payoffs a Third of Another Plan, Suit Says
GLOBAL FITNESS: Blackman Seeks Review of Settlement Ruling
GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Awaits OK of Settlement in Merger-Related Suit
GUESTLOGIX: Court Approves Amendments to Statement of Claim
HEALTHPORT TECH: 4th Cir. Sends "Gwozdz" Suit to State Court

HENRY INDUSTRIES: Counterclaims in "Hose" Survives Dismissal Bid
HERMANA MIRABAL: "Flores" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
HOME CAPITAL: Litigation Threat More Worrisome Than OSC Penalties
HOME CAPITAL: Siskinds LLP Files Securities Class Action
INDONESIA: Appeal in Case Over Bukit Duri Evictions Pending

INTELIQUENT INC: Files More Information on Onvoy Merger
J.P. MORGAN: Faces New Suit Over Deceptive Fees on D.C. Jurors
KAISER FOUNDATION: "Estrada" Suit Stays in Federal Dist. Court
KANE'S FURNITURE: Settles Class Action Over Lifetime Warranties
KING CITY, CA: Settlement in "Garcia" Case Wins Final Approval

LEBANON SCHOOL: Board Agrees to Settle Suit Over Truancy Policy
LG ELECTRONICS: Faces Suit Over V10 "Bootlooping" Defects
LIBERTY-ANN: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Grenier" Suit Says
LINC ENERGY: Community Split on Gas Contamination Class Action
LOUISIANA: Underfunds Public Defender System, Suit Says

LOURDES MEDICAL: Denial of Class Cert. Bid in "Chavez" Affirmed
LTG LLC: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
MECHEL BLUESTONE: Settles WARN Violation Class Action
MIDLAND CREDIT: "Johnston" Class Action Claims Dismissed
MONSANTO CO: Faces Class Action Over Dicamba Herbicide

MONTGOMERY, PA: "Ellis" Suit over Inmates' Records Dismissed
MYLAN INC: Illegally Inflates Clomipramine Price, Action Claims
NATIONAL HOCKEY: Seeks Access to BU Concussion Research Data
NATIONWIDE TRANSPORT: Fla. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
NESTLE: Plans to Vigorously Defend Suit Over Gerber Good Start

NEW MIAMI, OH: Must Repay $3MM Traffic Camera Speeding Citations
NEW YORK: "Singh" Sues Taxi Commission for Deceptive Practices
NYS LEE: "Kang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
PAK O AVENUE: "Huitzil" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
PIMLICO PLUMBERS: Ruling May Impact Gig Economy Labor Rights

PIXARBIO CORPORATION: Sued Over False and Misleading Reports
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Judge Denies Class Certification
PVG RESTAURANT: Vague Time-keeping Hit in "Battle" Suit, Seeks OT
RBS CITIZENS: Court Awards $1.13-Mil. in Attorneys' Fees & Costs
RIVERCREST COMMUNITY: Settlement Disastrous for Riverview Family

RPM INT'L: Awaits Final Nod of Settlement in Suit v. Rust-Oleum
TRIDENT INDUSTRIAL: Faces Suit Over Labor Standards Act Violations
SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Trial Set for Contamination Suit
SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: "Wilson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
SEARS HOLDINGS: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $40 Million

SHIRE US INC: Cummisford Anti-Trust Suit Transferred to D. Mass
SHIV SAKTI: Faces "Bianco" Suit Over Hotel Policies
SIRIUS XM: March 24 Deadline Set for Settlement Objections
SIRTEX MEDICAL: Refuses to Settle Sales Downgrade Class Action
SOLAR CITY: Frank Fish Appointed Lead Plaintiff

SONIC STEVENS: Falsely Marketed Plaintiff Vehicle, Suit Claims
SPECIALIZED LOAN: Bid to Bifurcate Discovery in "Quinn" Denied
SPECTRUM: Class Members Could Get Up to $1,000
SUMMIT TOOL: Faces Suit Over Misrepresented Tire Irons
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: "Vigil" 2nd Amended Suit Dismissed

TARGET CORP: 8th Cir. Remands Security Breach Suit
TENNESSEE: Shelby County Dismissed From Rape Kit Suit
TRANSAM TRUCKING: Plaintiff's Supplemental Disclosures Struck
TYSON FOODS: Bernstein Litowitz Appointed Lead Counsel
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Richemond" Suit Sent to Arbitration

UNDER ARMOUR: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Maryland
UNDER ARMOUR: April 10 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
UNDER ARMOUR: April 10 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
UNITED STATES: Immigration Rights Group Joins Travel Ban Suit
UNITED STATES: Lawyers on Travel Ban Suit Asks for Names of People

UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Keeps Ruling Blocking Trump Travel Ban
UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Hears Trump Travel Ban Appeal Arguments
UNIVERSITY TOYOTA: Arbitration Ruling in "Hardeman" Suit Reversed
USANA HEALTH: April 14 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
UNITED SERVICES: Court Hears Oral Arguments in Goodson Sanction

UNITED STATES: Court Adopts Health Dept's Corrective Action Plan
VIVINT SOLAR: "Encarnacion" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
VIZIO: Settles Smart Interactivity Class Action for $2.2MM
VOLKSWAGEN AG: GTA Car Owner Left Out of Two Class Actions
VOLKSWAGEN AG: EU Struggling to Impose Dieselgate Punishment

VOXX INTERNATIONAL: "Ford" Second Amended Suit Dismissed
WAL-MART CANADA: Faces Suit for Selling Food Unfit for Consumption
WALMART: Faces Class Action Over Craft Beer
WALGREENS: Judge Nixes Suit Over Bottled Water Tax
WELLS FARGO: Sued Over Non-U.S. Citizens' Loan Contract Policies

WESTERN DENTAL: Faces Suit Over TCPA Violations
WESTERN HOCKEY: Judge Orders to Unseal Financial Statements
YAHOO! INC: John Yanchunis Appointed Class Lead Counsel
YAHOO! INC: Bid for Summary Judgment in "Dominguez" Suit Granted

* Future of Dep't of Labor's Overtime Rules Remains Uncertain
* Judge Neil Gorsuch May Cast Deciding Vote on Arbitration Issue
* Taylor County to Pursue Class Action Against Drug Manufacturer
* Technology Brings Workplace Compliance Woes for Employers
* Texas Civil Asset Forfeiture Issue Deserves Closer Look


                            *********


ADUPS TECHNOLOGY: Faces Two Class Actions Over Software
-------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Wagstaff, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that when Samsung Electronics remotely disabled the last of its
flawed Galaxy Note 7 smartphones in January, it further blurred
the lines between who ultimately controls your phone, or computer,
car or appliance: you, or the companies that make it work?

Industry executives and analysts say companies are exerting
greater remote control over their devices -- changing how and
whether they work, removing or adding software and content, or
collecting personal data from them -- not always with permission
or with the user's best interests at heart.

"(The Samsung case) is exactly an example of how devices . . . are
no longer objects we own, but rather services we've subscribed to
and which can be revoked at a moment's notice," said Stefano
Zanero, an Italian computer security expert.

Mahbubul Alam, chief technology officer at Movimento, a car tech
firm now owned by Delphi Automotive, says manufacturers have moved
on from just selling a device and hoping there's no recall to a
world where they are in touch with users through internet-
connected devices that they can "change, modify, adjust" as they
see fit.

"With power comes responsibility," he adds.  "It's a new power
that the device manufacturers and telcos have.  How they exercise
their responsibility is very important."

Samsung said it retrieved 96 per cent of the more than three
million Note 7s it had sold and activated.  That left more than
120,000 unreturned phones that were put out of action by over-the-
air software updates or by telecom operators barring them from
their networks.

"We assume the majority of unreturned devices are not actually
used," said a spokesperson for the South Korean firm.

In another example, HP last year used a software update to prevent
unauthorised cartridges being used with some of its printers.
After some users complained, HP offered an optional update.  HP
did not respond to requests for comment.

In other cases, manufacturers use so-called firmware updates to
stop people using their devices in ways they don't want.

Apple, for example, routinely upgrades the firmware on iPhones to
outwit users' attempts to open up the software to unapproved apps
and functions -- dubbed jailbreaking -- said Bunnie Huang, a
hardware entrepreneur.

Gathering data

Bryan Hale of Resin.io, which distributes software updates to
connected devices, says gadget makers increasingly realise that
connected products are only as good as the software on them.  That
means they can't afford not to figure out how to update that
software.  Hacking attacks on appliances like CCTV and webcams
highlight the pitfalls of not keeping devices updated.

At the other extreme, some companies see this channel to the
device as a marketing opportunity, using over-the-air updates to
collect user information and push services and apps on to their
devices.

In the United States, Chinese firm Shanghai ADUPS Technology faces
two class-action suits after a security company found it installed
software on thousands of mobile devices that collected data
without users' permission.  One suit alleges the software "could
also remotely reprogram the devices and install applications on
consumers' phones without their knowledge or consent."

ADUPS Technology did not respond to requests for comment.

Whatever the motivation, companies see advantages in being able to
retain some degree of remote control.

Not least, manufacturers can reduce the costs of service centres
and staff, said Emma Wright, UK-based commercial technology
partner at law firm Kemp Little. "This . . . is an extremely
useful way of providing updates on devices without users having to
take it in to a store."

Samsung could have saved itself a lot of trouble, says Julie
Purves, CEO of UK-based remote management software company B2M
Solutions, if it had exerted even greater remote control.  Smart
batteries, she says, would have allowed her software to remotely
detect and report on abnormal behaviour.  Samsung's battery issue,
she says, could have been "identified much sooner and potentially
prevented altogether if spotted and addressed early enough."

This approach is also slowly transforming the automotive world,
where nearly a third of users never respond to a product recall,
says Alam at Movimento.

Consultant Michael Sena says the economics of the car industry are
not unlike those of the mobile sector, and car companies are
coming to terms with the changes wrought by Tesla, which pushes
updates and features to its cars wirelessly, removing the need for
dealers.

Privacy

This, in turn, raises the issue of privacy.

European Union law, Sena says, will next year be more stringent on
data protection, and will effectively mean "if I own a device,
what happens with that device is up to me."

So far, he says, companies like Tesla in autos and consumer
players have operated in a grey area that sometimes helps the
consumer, and sometimes doesn't.

But there are signs that is changing.

The US Federal Trade Commission settled with Vizio, a US-based
appliance maker being acquired by Chinese conglomerate LeEco, over
software that automatically collected data on viewing habits from
its smart TVs. As part of the settlement, Vizio agreed to ensure
it makes clear to users what data it wants to collect, and seek
their approval.

More regulation from government is likely.

"What's needed here is oversight," said Bryce Boland, Asia-Pacific
chief technology officer at FireEye, an internet security company.

"Some cases may be legitimate, such as devices that need to be
modified to prevent forest fires or human deaths; others might be
more difficult to assess."


ALABAMA: Lawyers Call for More Prison Suicide Prevention Measures
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lillie Dunn, writing for Alabama News, reports that lawyers for
Alabama prison inmates have asked a federal judge to force the
state to put additional suicide prevention measures in place.

In a Feb. 9 motion to the court, they argued the Department of
Corrections has failed to comply with an agreement reached in
January after a prisoner killed himself days after testifying in
the class-action lawsuit alleging Alabama provides inadequate
psychiatric care.

Lawyers for inmates said the state has not fully implemented the
agreement "intended to save the lives of ADOC prisoners."

Bob Horton, spokesman for the state prison system disputed the
accusation, saying the department has "vigorously taken action to
follow the agreement as ordered by the court."

He said department lawyers are studying the request.

The judge ordered the parties to appear in a settlement conference
on Feb. 13.


ALDRIDGE PITE: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Moskovits" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district
court's dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint in the case captioned,
ALEXANDER EUGENIO MOSKOVITS, individually and for all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALDRIDGE PITE, LLP,
f.k.a. Aldridge Connors, LLP, SARAH BARBACCIA, ESQ., MINDY DATZ,
ESQ., ROSA M. SUTTLE, MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD, PLLC, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 16-11216 (11th Cir.).

Pro se plaintiff Alexander Moskovits filed a putative class-action
complaint in the Southern District of Florida in February 2016,
more than four years after a foreclosure action was filed. The
Complaint names 23 defendants, including Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems, Inc., HSBC Mortgage Corp., HSBC Bank USA
N.A., and the law firms and mortgage servicers involved in
Gorham's foreclosure. Plaintiff seeks individual and class-wide
damages on three substantive counts: first, violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18
U.S.C. Section 1962(a)-(d), predicated on instances of mail fraud,
18 U.S.C. Section 1341, and wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1343;
second, common-law unjust enrichment resulting from false billing
practices; and third, violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e and 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692j, resulting from defendants' dissemination of
misleading collections communications. The Complaint made clear
that Plaintiff was proceeding on a pro se basis and is a resident
of Brazil.

Two days after Plaintiff filed the Complaint, the district court
filed a sua sponte order requiring Plaintiff to file a RICO case
statement by February 17, 2016. February 17 came and went, and
Plaintiff failed to file a RICO statement as required. The
district court dismissed the Complaint without prejudice on
February 18 for failure to prosecute, citing Plaintiff's apparent
disregard for the court-ordered deadline.

On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the district court abused its
discretion by failing to give him prompt notice of the RICO Order
and sufficient time to comply.

In the Per Curiam dated January 24, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/x6ZCkm from Leagle.com, the Appeals Court found that
there is no abuse of discretion because Plaintiff suffered no
prejudice as a result of the district court's dismissal of his
complaint without prejudice to refile and the FDCPA claim was
time-barred at the time suit was filed, the district court's
dismissal had no prejudicial effect on it.


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Faces Class Action Over Collection Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Northern California Record,
reports that a San Diego County woman has filed a class-action
suit against a Minnesota limited liability company over its
collection calls.

Keisha Newsom filed a complaint individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated on Jan. 24 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California against Allied Interstate
LLC alleging that the debt collector violated Telephone Consumer
Collection Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that beginning
in June 2015, she suffered emotional distress, frustration,
invasion on her privacy from receiving incessant calls on her
cellular phone from the defendant in its attempt to collect on
alleged debt.  The plaintiffs hold Allied Interstate LLC
responsible because the defendant allegedly engaged in an unlawful
practice of using an autodialer to place calls to cellular phones
and without prior express consent to place the calls.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seek judgment against
defendant, certify collective action, appoint class representative
and counsel, and further relief as may be just. She is represented
by Abbas Kazerounian and Jason A. Ibey of Kazerouni Law Group in
Costa Mesa and Daniel G. Shay of Law Office of Daniel G. Shay in
San Diego.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California Case
number 3:17-cv-00130


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Recognition of Seniority Sought in "Bakos" Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Bakos, Richard Bell, Robert Benjamin, Terry Brooks, Brian
Cameron, David Cooper, David Crowe, Greg Finch, Patrick Foley,
Dewey Gray, Francis Heid, Kelli Hughes, Glenn Kyrk, Murray
Muzzall, Mark Newcomb, Michael O'Bryan, Thomas O'Conner, William
Payne, Michael Phelan, Cheryl Robles, Stephen Rogers, David
Shaskan, Whitney Sieben, Gilberto Smith, William Tally, Scott
Torrence and David Wexhler individually and on behalf of a class
of similarly situated American Airlines Pilots, Plaintiffs, v.
American Airlines, Inc. and Allied Pilots Association, Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-cv-00402, (E.D. Penn., January 27, 2017), seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief, redress, including an award of
compensatory and punitive damages for the failure of the
Defendants to fairly and adequately represent the Plaintiffs with
regard to the seniority integration process affected under the
McCaskill-Bond Act as a result the merger of American Airlines and
US Airway, Inc.

Plaintiffs are airline pilots of American Airlines who seek
recognition of their seniority over their counterparts in US
Airway, Inc., now that these companies have merged.

American Airlines is commercial carrier airline with national and
international operations, organized and existing under the laws of
the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business in Fort
Worth, Texas.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Alan B. Epstein, Esq.
      Jared Solomon, Esq.
      Johan A. Ashrafzadeh-Kian, Esq.
      SPECTOR, GADON AND ROSEN, P.C.
      1635 Market Street, Seventh Floor
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 241-8888
      Facsimile: (215) 241-8844
      Email: aepstein@lawsgr.com
             jsolomon@lawsgr.com
             jkian@lawsgr.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: LAX Workers File Wage Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Suevon Lee and Alex Wolf, writing for Law360, report that American
Airlines has been hit with a proposed class action in California
court that alleges the airline has shorted non-exempt workers at
Los Angeles International Airport of minimum wage, overtime pay
and other wage and hour violations.

The Feb. 9 putative class complaint refers to American Airlines'
"illegal payroll practices and policies," such as allegedly
requiring non-exempt workers at LAX to work outside their regular
hours or through meal and rest breaks and for failing to maintain
records or provide itemized wage statements.

"As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of
defendants, plaintiffs and class members have suffered, and
continue to suffer, from loss of earnings in amounts as yet
unascertained, but subject to proof at trial, and within the
jurisdiction of this court," the complaint states.

The suit is brought by three plaintiffs, Megan Larkin, Roxana
Portillo and Delia Roja, who allege they worked as non-exempt
American Airlines Inc. staff at LAX without specifying the roles
they held.  They seek to represent a class of similarly situated
non-exempt employees who worked for the airline at LAX within the
last four years, which according to the complaint contains a
"significant number of class members."

The complaint alleges seven violations of California labor law,
including failing to pay minimum wage, overtime or timely pay
wages, as well as failing to reimburse the workers for necessary
expenses including cell phone usage.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, restitution, injunctive
relief against American Airlines for allegedly continuing to
violate provisions of the California Labor Code, statutory and
civil penalties, 10 percent interest on the unpaid wages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Neither a representative for the plaintiffs nor American Airlines
immediately responded to a request for comment on Feb. 13.

The suit has echoes of a wage-and-hour class action filed in New
Jersey federal court against the airline last May.  In that suit,
certain baggage handlers whose duties consist of pulling freight
onto and off outgoing and incoming airline flights accused the
airline of cheating them of overtime compensation by either not
paying them for time worked or failing to provide increased wages
when they work more than 40 hours a week.

The plaintiffs in the California case are represented by Shoham J.
Savoy -- shoham@soloukisavoy.com -- and Grant Joseph Savoy --
grant@soloukisavoy.com -- at Solouki Savoy LLP and Dan B. Yakobian
of DBY Law.

Counsel information for American Airlines wasn't immediately
available.

The case is Megan Larkin, et al. v. American Airlines Inc., case
number BC650122 in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles.


AMERICAN BLINDS: Faces Suit Over TCPA Violations
------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres at Norhtern California Record reports a
Clovis man alleges a drape and blind company unlawfully called him
to solicit its services.

Jogert Abrantes filed a complaint on behalf of individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated on Feb. 3 in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California against
American Blinds and Draperies Inc. and Does 1-10 citing the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that in
September 2016, the defendants used an automatic telephone dialing
system to contact him to offer its services. He alleges he is
registered in the National-Do-Not-Call Registry. The plaintiffs
hold American Blinds and Draperies Inc. and Does 1-10 responsible
because the defendants allegedly engaged in an unlawful practice
of using an autodialer to place calls to cellular phones and
without prior express consent to communicate with plaintiff.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment against
defendants, injunctive relief, statutory and treble damages of
$500 for every violation and $1,500 for every willful violation,
and all other relief that the court deems just. He is represented
by Todd M. Friedman -- tfriedman@toddflaw.com -- Adrian R. Bacon
-- abacon@toddflaw.com -- and Meghan E. George --
mgeorge@toddflaw.com -- of Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman PC in
Woodland Hills.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California Case
number 1:17-cv-00152


AMERICAN INT'L: NY Settles Securities Fraud Suit v. Ex-CEO
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that New York Attorney General Eric
Schneiderman says a securities fraud lawsuit involving the former
chief executive of insurance company American International Group
Inc. has been settled.

An agreement reached through a mediator requires Maurice R.
Greenberg to pay $9 million he received as performance bonuses.

Greenberg was accused of manipulating AIG's accounting records in
2000 and 2001 to hide hundreds of millions of dollars in losses
from investors. He says he agreed to the settlement to resolve the
12-year-old case.

The settlement also requires Howard I. Smith, AIG's former chief
financial officer, to pay $900,000.

AIG is one of the world's largest insurance companies.  It nearly
collapsed in 2008 at the height of the financial crisis and
received about $180 billion in bailout aid.


AMERITANIA 54TH: "Bechar" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Mohamed Bechar, individually and in behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ameritania 54th Associates, LLC,
Jay Podolsky and Stuart Podolsky, jointly and severally,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00718, (S.D. N.Y., January 30, 2017),
seeks unpaid or underpaid overtime compensation, and such other
relief available under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
Labor Law.

Defendants operate a hotel, "Ameritania at Times Square" located
at 230th West 54TH Street, New York, New York, where Plaintiff
worked as a laundryman, construction worker and porter. Bechar
claims unpaid overtime for hours rendered in excess of 40 per work
week.

Plaintiff is represented by:

John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
      Brandon D. Sherr, Esq.
      Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
      227 Broadway, Suite 408
      New York, NY 10007-2036
      Telephone: (212) 229-2249
      Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
      Email: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
             bsherr@zellerlegal.com
             jazeller@zellerlegal.com

APOLLO EDUCATION: 6th Cir. Affirms Arbitration in "Aldrich" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has affirmed the
District Court's decision granting Apollo Education Group, Inc.'s
motion to dismiss and compel arbitration filed in the lawsuit
titled Aldrich, et al. v. The University of Phoenix, Case No.
15-C-2839.

On June 9, 2015, two former University of Phoenix employees filed
an action in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Kentucky
alleging that they were wrongfully terminated from their positions
with the University in violation of Kentucky and federal law. In
this action, which is captioned Aldrich et al. v. The University
of Phoenix, 15-C-2839 (Jefferson Cty. Circuit Court), plaintiffs
also allege that the University violated Kentucky wage and hour
law by failing to pay plaintiffs overtime and other required
wages, and in connection with these wage and hour claims, they
seek to represent a class of plaintiffs consisting of all
individuals employed by the University within the past five years
who performed a substantial part of their job duties in Kentucky.
Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on their own behalf in
connection with their alleged wrongful termination and past due
wages, overtime compensation and other relief on behalf of the
class in connection with the wage and hour claims.

On March 4, 2016, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss and compel arbitration. On March 9, 2016, plaintiffs filed
a notice of their intent to appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District
Court's decision in October 2016.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the
Company says the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at
this point. Based on the information available to it at present,
the Company says it cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for
this action and, accordingly, the Company has not accrued any
liability associated with this action.

Apollo Education Group, Inc. is a private education provider
serving students since 1973.  The Company offers undergraduate,
graduate, certificate and nondegree educational programs and
services, online and on-campus, principally to working adults in
the U.S. and abroad.


APOLLO EDUCATION: Awaits Approval of Merger Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Education Group, Inc., awaits approval of agreement to
settle a consolidated merger-related shareholder lawsuit,
according to the Company's January 9, 2017, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
November 30, 2016.

On February 7, 2016, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (as amended, the "Merger Agreement") with AP VIII
Queso Holdings, L.P. ("Queso"), a subsidiary of funds affiliated
with Apollo Management VIII, L.P., which is an affiliate of Apollo
Global Management, LLC and Socrates Merger Sub, Inc., a subsidiary
of Queso, none of which is, or has ever been, affiliated with the
Company. At the effective time of the merger pursuant to the
Merger Agreement (the "Merger"), which, subject to the
satisfaction of the closing conditions, each share of the
Company's issued and outstanding Class A and Class B common stock
will be converted pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement
into the right to receive $10.00 per share in cash. On May 6,
2016, the Merger Agreement was approved by the holders of the
Company's outstanding Class A and Class B common stock, each
voting separately as a class.

The Company said: "In connection with the pending Merger described
in Note 1, Nature of Operations and Significant Accounting
Policies, the class action lawsuits listed below have been filed
in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, Maricopa County
against some or all of the following parties: us, our directors,
the Apollo Class B Voting Stock Trust No. 1, AP VIII Queso
Holdings, L.P., Socrates Merger Sub, Inc., and Barclays Capital
Inc. and Evercore Group L.L.C. (in their capacity as our financial
advisors in connection with the Merger):

   * Casey v. Apollo Education Group, Inc., et al.,
     Case No. CV2016-051605 filed on February 25, 2016;

   * Miglio v. Apollo Education Group, Inc., et al.,
     Case No. CV2016-003718 filed on February 26, 2016;

   * Blanchfield v. Apollo Education Group, Inc., et al.,
     Case No. CV2016-001738 filed on February 29, 2016;

   * Wagner v. Apollo Education Group, Inc., et al.,
     Case No. CV2016-001905 filed on March 9, 2016;

   * Ladouceur v. Apollo Education Group, Inc., et al.,
     Case No. CV2016-002148 filed on March 17, 2016; and

   * Simkhovich v. Apollo Education Group, Inc., et al.,
     Case No. CV2016-002339 filed on March 23, 2016."

"The complaints generally allege that our directors have violated
their fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to properly
value us and failing to maximize our value to our shareholders as
well as by including purportedly preclusive deal protections in
the Merger Agreement, and that we, AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P.
and Socrates Merger Sub, Inc. aided and abetted such alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties. The Miglio, Wagner, Ladouceur and
Simkhovich complaints further allege that our directors breached
their fiduciary duty of candor by filing a materially incomplete
and misleading preliminary proxy statement and also allege that
the sale process was negatively impacted by certain conflicts with
our financial advisors. The plaintiffs seek various remedies,
including a declaration that the action is properly maintainable
as a class action, an injunction against the consummation of the
Merger, an accounting of the damages sustained by the plaintiffs
and the class, costs and fees of the action, including attorneys'
fees and expenses, and any other equitable relief the court may
deem just and proper."

"On March 4, 2016, the action titled Blanchfield v. Apollo
Education Group, Inc., et al. was voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice."

"On April 12, 2016, the Superior Court of the State of Arizona,
Maricopa County consolidated the remaining Casey, Miglio, Wagner,
Ladouceur and Simkhovich cases into a single action, In re Apollo
Education Group, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No.
CV2016-001905 (the "Consolidated Action"). On May 1, 2016, we
reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to settle the
Consolidated Action in connection with the increase in the Merger
consideration to $10.00 per share, which agreement is subject to
consummation of the Merger, certain confirmatory discovery and
approval by the court. If the Merger is consummated, we anticipate
that we will be required to pay the plaintiffs' expenses and an
amount for attorneys' fees yet to be determined and subject to
court approval. We have not accrued any liability associated with
this action."

Apollo Education Group, Inc. is a private education provider
serving students since 1973.  The Company offers undergraduate,
graduate, certificate and nondegree educational programs and
services, online and on-campus, principally to working adults in
the U.S. and abroad.


APOLLO EDUCATION: Continues to Defend "Lomingkit" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Education Group, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
class action lawsuit initiated by Rameses Te Lomingkit, et al.,
according to the Company's January 9, 2017, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
November 30, 2016.

The Company said: "On March 14, 2016, a class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona, captioned Rameses Te Lomingkit et al. v. Apollo Education
Group, Inc. et al., Case Number 2:16-CV-00689-JZB. The plaintiff,
who allegedly purchased our shares during the specified class
period, filed this putative class action on behalf of the
plaintiff and all of our shareholders who acquired Class A shares
between June 26, 2013 and October 21, 2015 and seeks certification
as a class action and unspecified compensatory damages and costs.
The plaintiff alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
under the Exchange Act, by us and certain of our officers for
making allegedly false and misleading statements and failing to
disclose material facts relating to the nature of our military
recruitment activities and the status of our online classroom
platform. The Court appointed the Government of Guam Retirement
Fund as lead plaintiff on June 16, 2016."

On August 15, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
which also focuses on statements and omissions relating to
military recruiting and the online classroom platform.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against the
plaintiff's allegations.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the
Company says the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at
this point. Based on the information available to it at present,
the Company says it cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for
this action and, accordingly, the Company has not accrued any
liability associated with this action.

Apollo Education Group, Inc. is a private education provider
serving students since 1973.  The Company offers undergraduate,
graduate, certificate and nondegree educational programs and
services, online and on-campus, principally to working adults in
the U.S. and abroad.


APPCO: More Videos Emerge in Workers' Abuse Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Lorna Knowles, writing for ABC, reports that shocking new videos
showing workers being forced to simulate sex acts for not meeting
sales targets have emerged as part of a $60 million class action
against leading charity fundraiser Appco Group Australia.

Appco hires young sales reps as independent contractors via
marketing companies.  The workers, known as charity muggers or
"chuggers", raise money for some of Australia's biggest charities,
as well as big-name companies and utilities including Optus and
AGL.

The company is accused of "sham contracting" -- hiring workers as
independent contractors rather than employees to avoid paying them
the minimum wage.

The class action is the biggest of its kind in Australian history.

Lawyers have already signed up 730 claimants around the country
who allege they were paid as little as $5 per hour for up to 80
hours per week.

Many also allege they were subjected to bizarre workplace
humiliation rituals.

'Pseudo sexual acts'

In the latest video, filmed at an Adelaide marketing company
engaged by Appco Group Australia, male workers are forced to
simulate sexual acts on colleagues who failed to meet their sales
targets.

Lead partner at Chamberlains Law Firm, Rory Markham, Esq. --
rory.markham@chamberlains.com.au -- said it was the worst video he
had seen so far.

"The video depicts a series of pseudo sexual acts performed on men
by other men in a room's morning meeting which we're instructed
was orchestrated by the managing director of that company," Mr
Markham said.

The video was filmed in April 2014 at a marketing company called
On Demand Sports.  It is now known as Visionary Direct
Enterprises.

"It's a video that can't be explained in any employment or any
business context," Mr Markham said.

"No employer in Australia could get away with that sort of
behaviour.  It appears to be the relics of a very long lost navy
ritual that we don't see in the Australian context any more."

In another video, a manager at Crossfire Marketing in Brisbane
instructs young sales workers how to perform a "slug race".

The video shows the workers laying face down on a meeting room
floor and writhing on the ground with their arms behind their
backs.

Mr Markham said it was another workplace ritual designed to punish
and humiliate workers who did not meet their sales targets.

In a statement to the ABC, Appco said that in the past, some of
the marketing businesses that sub-contracted its services to Appco
may have conducted "motivational games" which, while well-
intentioned, crossed the line into improper behaviour.

"Any such activities were conducted without the knowledge,
permission or encouragement of Appco Australia," the statement
said.

"These activities have now been banned and represent a breach of
contract with Appco."

In the class action, due to commence in the Federal Court next
month, lawyers will allege Appco used an elaborate and complex
model of contracting to defeat basic employment entitlements,
while also reaping the benefits and profits of running one of the
country's largest marketing enterprises.

Mr Markham said the average age of claimants was 22.  They had
worked in the business for 44 weeks, 67 hours per week.  They
earned a total commission of $387 per week but then had to pay
work expenses of between $60 and $140 per week.

In a significant breakthrough for the case, one of the claimants
has obtained a ruling from the Fair Work Ombudsman that he was an
employee, not an independent contractor.

Tyrone Corbett worked for Appco marketing company QMG in Hobart.
He said he was grossly underpaid and witnessed workplace rituals
which involved workers being forced to place cigarettes up their
backsides and smoke them and lick underpants.

But in a statement to the ABC, Appco Group Australia said the
adverse finding related to QMG Marketing in Hobart and was
consistent with the fact that Appco did not employ or directly
contract workers.  It said it would vigorously defend the sham
contracting allegations.

"The statement of claim in the class action does not make any
allegations of bullying and harassment, despite several months of
a bullying-based media campaign designed to attract publicity for
the case," the company statement said.

Mr Corbett told the ABC he wanted to see Appco held accountable
for the harm done to workers.

"I think that some of the injustices that the leaders knew about
and encouraged need to be put right," he said.

"It was one of my good friends . . . who had to shove the
cigarette up his butt.  That was not right.  He is scarred by
that.

"So my main purpose for this is to have some sort of justice for
him.

"While the people who perpetrated this may not be held to account,
this is some way for them to pay it back."

Tim Gunstone from the National Union of Workers (NUW) said sham
contracting was a big problem in the fundraising sector.

"We see new ones cropping up all the time and where there is no
checking that their employment practices are lawful and ethical,"
he said.

"They continue to employ people in an unlawful and unethical
manner."

He said most people would be shocked to learn that between 60 and
90 cents in the dollar collected for charities went directly to
the marketing companies.

"The only people winning at the moment is the for-profit companies
who are ripping off the workers," Mr Gunstone said.

"They're ripping off charities and they are ripping off donors,
the charities are suffering reputational risk, donors are having
money not reaching the charity that they believe and the young
people doing the work are not getting paid enough."


ARBY'S: Credit Union Files Data Breach Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Dena Aubin, writing for Reuters, reports that an Indiana credit
union has hit Arby's Restaurant Group with a proposed class action
alleging that the company failed to beef up its cybersecurity,
allowing a major data breach that hurt thousands of issuers of
credit and debit cards nationwide.

Filed on Feb. 10 in Atlanta federal court by Fort Wayne, Indiana-
based Midwest America Federal Credit Union, the lawsuit seeks
damages for the costs of investigating and refunding fraudulent
charges and replacing cards affected by the breach.


ARIZONA: Must Defend Against Suit Over Motor Vehicle Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David G. Campbell of the United States District
Court for the District of Arizona denied Defendants' motion to
dismiss and Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction in the
case captioned, Lucrecia Rivas Valenzuela, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Doug Ducey, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV-16-03072-PHX-DGC (D.
Ariz.).

Plaintiffs argue that Arizona's policy of denying driver's
licenses to certain deferred action recipients violates the
Supremacy and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States
Constitution. The Court and the Ninth Circuit previously held that
this same policy violates the Constitution with respect to
individuals who receive deferred action through the Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

Defendants contend that Plaintiffs lack standing and the Court
therefore lacks jurisdiction over their claims. Defendants also
argue that Plaintiffs' claims against Governor Ducey are barred by
sovereign immunity.

Plaintiffs ask the Court to consider the constitutionality of
Executive Order 2012-06 and Arizona Department of Transportation's
(ADOT) Motor Vehicle Division (MVD) Policy 16.1.4 with respect to
individuals who receive deferred action outside the DACA program
and individuals with deferred enforced departure.

In his Order dated January 26, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/3yCv7F from Leagle.com, Judge Campbell found that
Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to show standing, and the
Court will not dismiss their claims for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. As to Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction,
the Court found that the current record insufficient to make a
fair determination of whether a preliminary injunction is
warranted.

The parties are directed to conduct discovery before filing
renewed motions for class certification and a preliminary
injunction.

Marcos Gonzalez, et al. are represented by:

      Daniel R. Ortega, Jr., Esq.
      ORTEGA LAW FIRM PC
      361 East Coronado Road, Suite 101
      Phoenix, AZ 85004-1525
      Tel:(602)386-4455

            -- and --

      Karen Cassandra Tumlin, Esq.
      Nicholas David Espiritu, Esq.
      Nora A. Preciado, Esq.
      Tanya Broder, Esq.
      NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
      3435 Wilshire Blvd #2850,
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Tel: (213)639-3900

Doug Ducey, et al. are represented by Doug C. Northup, Esq. --
dnorthup@fclaw.com -- and -- Sean Thomas Hood, Esq. --
shood@fclaw.com -- FENNEMORE CRAIG PC


AUSTRALIA: Peninsula Link Camera Speed Calculation Challenged
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Taylor, writing for Bayside News, reports that a Peninsula
Link motorist booked for speeding has used his car's dash cam and
satellite pictures to measure the distance between two points to
calculate his actual speed -- more than 10kph below that stated on
his fine.

The calculation will add fuel to the fire of discontent over the
dozens of contentious fines meted out to freeway drivers, many of
who have joined the Peninsula Link 108 group which is planning a
class action.

Allan Tadich, of Kilsyth, said he received an infringement notice
for doing 112kph as he passed the Loders Rd static camera on 22
December.

"This seemed incorrect as I had my car's cruise control set at
100kph," he said.

"Fortunately, I had the dash-cam on and was able to review the
footage later."

Determined to prove the camera wrong, Mr Tadich used his dash cam
and Google Earth to identify two easily recognisable points and
cross referenced them.

He then calculated the elapsed time taken to drive between the two
points to within 0.5 of a metre.

Using the formula speed equals distance divided by time he was
able to calculate his actual speed at 101.5kph plus-or-minus
0.5kph.

"I have used this as the basis of my appeal and am calling for an
internal review.

On Feb. 10, Mr Tadich received some good news: The officer in
charge of the traffic control branch had agreed to suspend his
infringement pending "further investigation".

Mr Tadich said to be clocked supposedly at 112kph meant he could
have been driving as fast as 115kph, using the plus-or-minus 3kph
built into the cameras.

He says this is ridiculous. "I have a high level of confidence
that they are clearly wrong," he said.

"The static camera at Loders Rd has not been tested for 11 months
and so, surely, is due for recalibration."

Cameras usually are tested every 12 months, meaning this camera is
due for testing this month.

He said a speed of 115kph would have been picked up by the point-
to-point cameras, which calculate a car's average speed over a
certain distance.

Road Safety Camera Commissioner John Voyage said the Peninsula
Link investigation "is indeed continuing".

"We have analysed a substantial amount of data, but there is still
more to go through," he said. "We have received 96 complaints at
this office, plus 12 that were received before the [Police]
Minister [Lisa Neville] requested the investigation.

"We are most certainly carefully looking for where a problem could
be.

"This involves carefully scrutinising every aspect of the road
safety camera system along the Peninsula Link freeway."


BATS GLOBAL: Files More Info to Moot Kim's Disclosure Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Bats Global Markets, Inc., said in its Form 8-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2017, that it
voluntarily supplements its proxy statement regarding a proposed
merger transaction to moot unmeritorious disclosure claims
asserted in a putative class action lawsuit.

On September 26, 2016, Bats Global Markets, Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("Bats") announced that it had entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), dated as of
September 25, 2016, by and among Bats, CBOE Holdings, Inc., a
Delaware corporation ("CBOE Holdings"), CBOE Corporation, a
Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of CBOE Holdings
("Merger Sub"), and CBOE V, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company and wholly owned subsidiary of CBOE Holdings ("Merger
LLC").  The Merger Agreement provides, among other things, that,
upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the
Merger Agreement, (i) Merger Sub will merge with and into Bats,
with Bats surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of CBOE Holdings
(the "Merger"), and (ii) following the completion of the Merger,
the surviving corporation from the Merger will merge with and into
Merger LLC (the "Subsequent Merger"), with Merger LLC surviving
the Subsequent Merger and continuing as a wholly owned subsidiary
of CBOE Holdings.

On December 16, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Seung Kim, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly
Situated v. Bats Global Markets, Inc., Chris Concannon, Joseph
Ratterman, Alan H. Freudenstein, Robert W. Jones, Jamil Nazarali,
John McCarthy, Chris Mitchell, Frank Reardon and Michael Richter,
Case No. 2:16-CV-02817-DDC-KGG (the "Merger Litigation") was filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.
The Merger Litigation relates to the Merger Agreement and the
definitive proxy statement filed with the United States Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on December 12, 2016 (the
"Proxy Statement") in connection with the Merger.

Bats believes that the claims asserted in the Merger Litigation
are without merit and intends to defend against the Merger
Litigation vigorously. However, in order to moot plaintiffs'
unmeritorious disclosure claims, alleviate the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation and provide additional
information to its stockholders, Bats has determined to
voluntarily supplement the Proxy Statement as described in this
Current Report on Form 8-K. Nothing in this Current Report on Form
8-K shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or
materiality under applicable laws of any of the disclosures set
forth herein. To the contrary, Bats specifically denies all
allegations in the Merger Litigation that any additional
disclosure was or is required.

BATS Global Markets, Inc. operates securities exchanges and other
electronic markets.


BELLAMY'S: Bell Potter Clients Mull Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Damon Kitney and Sue Neales, writing for The Australian, report
that Bell Potter principal Hugh Robertson on Feb. 13 dismissed
speculation his decision to step off the TasFoods board on
Feb. 10 was the result of pressure from his stockbroking firm as
the battle for control of Bellamy's becomes increasingly personal.

Instead he said he was not prepared to remain on the TasFoods
board with Mr Woolley, who remains as Bellamy's chairman and said
on Feb. 12 that he continued to have the support of his investors
to remain in his position.

"It certainly wasn't under any pressure or duress from Ben Potter.
With the way this whole Bellamy's battle has been going, it wasn't
appropriate for me to stay on the TasFoods board with Rob," Mr
Robertson told The Australian this morning.

Bellamy's and TasFoods have a number of common shareholders.

It is understood Mr Robertson gave no reason for his resignation
to TasFoods on Feb. 10 and made no contact with Mr Woolley.

On Feb. 10 Bell Potter's Vaughan Webber unexpectedly resigned from
Ms Cameron's ticket of directors to replace Bellamy's current
board.  Ms Cameron has also called for the immediate resignation
of Mr Woolley.

Bell Financial executive chairman Colin Bell, head of the Bell
Potter group, told The Australian there had been no company
directive to either Mr Robertson or Vaughan Webber to end their
directorships with respectively, the TasFoods group or Jan
Cameron's alternate new Bellamy's board.

Mr Bell said both Bell Potter stockbrokers had made their own
decisions to resign their respective positions.

"They informed the company what they had done and why; they have
our full support," Mr Bell said.

Mr Bell rejected speculation that Mr Webber had changed his plans
to join the Bellamy's board as a new director because Bell Potter
had clients who were considering joining a class action against
Bellamy's over its alleged late disclosure of poor China sales and
a cash flow crisis, which led to its December share price crash.


CANADA: Estabrooks Sexual Abuse Class Action V. St. John Okayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Jones, writing for CBC News, reports that victims of a
serial child sexual predator who committed crimes while employed
by the City of Saint John between the 1950s and 1980s, have been
cleared to sue the city as a group.

In a ruling quietly released on Feb. 9, Justice William Grant
rejected arguments from Saint John that victims of the late
Kenneth Estabrooks -- a former city police officer and works
department employee -- should not be allowed to launch a class
action lawsuit.

"I find that the plaintiff has satisfied the requirement of
demonstrating that a class proceeding is the preferable procedure
in this case," wrote Justice Grant in a 39-page decision that
dismantled several arguments put forward by city lawyers last
July, opposing the group lawsuit.

Kirk Baert, a Toronto lawyer who specializes in class actions and
is representing victims of Mr. Estabrooks, said a lawsuit against
Saint John will now proceed.

"At long last, the children who were abused decades ago will have
a chance to prove their claims in court," wrote Mr. Baert in an
email to CBC News.

"The wheels of justice may turn slowly but they do turn and the
City of Saint John will now have to defend their choices and their
conduct in a court of law."

Mr. Estabrooks was a police officer between 1953 and 1975, when
his law enforcement career was terminated abruptly following
admissions to superiors he had sexually abused at least two boys.

But rather than being charged with a crime, Mr. Estabrooks was
transferred to the city works department, where he retired in
1983.

Years later, more accusations led to Mr. Estabrooks being
convicted in 1999 on four charges of indecent assault involving
three boys and a girl during the years he worked for the city.  He
was sentenced to six years in prison and died in 2005.

However, a subsequent private investigation launched in 2012 and
funded by the city found evidence of 79 Estabrooks victims with
investigators suggesting the number was likely higher.

Victim speaks out

One of those 79 victims was Robert Hayes, who has been attempting
to launch a class action lawsuit against the city on behalf of all
children abused by Mr. Estabrooks, but the effort faced stiff
opposition in court from the city.

Mr. Hayes swore an affidavit describing how he was first sexually
assaulted by Mr. Estabrooks in 1970 as a 10-year-old and many
times after that during the following three or four years.

Mr. Hayes said Mr. Estabrooks would take him to an isolated part
of Saint John's Tin Can Beach for the assaults.  Mr. Hayes claims
he witnessed it happening to others.

"During the same time frame I witnessed Estabrooks raping seven or
eight other children on Tin Can Beach," Mr. Hayes said in his
affidavit.

"He was a big man.  Because he was a policeman he carried a gun.
All of the kids I knew in the south end were afraid of
Estabrooks."

Mr. Hayes said he was sexually assaulted again by Mr. Estabrooks
as a young man, when the two were both employed by the city works
department and supervisors simply advised him to "move faster" to
avoid being assaulted.

City lawyers made a number of arguments against certifying
Mr. Hayes's lawsuit as a class action, each of which Justice Grant
either dismissed or said could be argued later in trial.

Mr. Baert told the court last July that victims of Mr. Estabrooks
could not afford to launch individual lawsuits against the city on
their own and that a class action was the only practical way for a
case to proceed.


CANADA: Will Back Off On Judge's '60s Scoop Ruling
--------------------------------------------------
Colin Perkel at The Star reports the federal government backed off
on February 10 from its widely panned last-minute plan to force a
judge to delay his decision on the '60s Scoop class-action
lawsuit.

That means Ontario Superior Court Justice Edward Belobaba is now
will now rule on the long-running lawsuit as early as February 13.

In an email to the judge obtained by The Canadian Press, a senior
Justice Department lawyer said it would not proceed with a formal
motion to have him delay the decision.

The proposed motion, Barney Brucker said, was motivated by the
"prospect of a negotiated resolution" to both the Ontario action
led by plaintiff Marcia Brown Martel as well as other '60s Scoop
litigation before the courts in other provinces.

"The pan-Canadian resolution is intended to address in an
integrated way matters which could not form part of any remedies
granted by courts," Brucker said. "In that sense, our purpose in
seeking abeyance was not to delay justice for the Brown plaintiffs
but rather to embrace broader justice for similarly situated
persons."

The situation erupted after Indigenous Affairs Minister Carolyn
Bennett gave a vague statement that she wanted to negotiate with
'60s Scoop survivors. Days later, Brucker wrote Belobaba to ask
him to delay a ruling he was poised to make on whether the federal
government was liable to thousands of aboriginal children who were
placed in non-aboriginal homes.

The Ontario action, launched in 2009 and fought tooth and nail by
Ottawa since then, seeks $1.3 billion on the grounds that the
children suffered harm when the government negligently failed to
ensure they retained their cultural identity.

Brown Martel's lawyers, observers and even the judge himself
called the delay request unprecedented and extraordinary. Brown
Martel herself called it attempted political interference in the
judicial system.

"When it comes to a court process, they have not acknowledged the
wrongs, the detrimental history, that they have committed upon our
people, our aboriginal children in this country," Brown Martel
said in an interview earlier this week. "They are trying to
circumvent that legal process through political manoeuvring."

Nevertheless, Belobaba said he would consider a formal written
motion before deciding whether to grant it. That will no longer be
needed.

In his email Friday, Brucker said the government wanted to pursue
a "robust and expedited process of reconciliation for the whole of
the country," noting that some issues touch on provincial
jurisdiction.

"In view of the plaintiff's understandable desire to obtain a
legal decision without further delay, we will respect their choice
and will not be proceeding with a motion requesting an abeyance of
your decision," Brucker said. "We look forward to receipt of your
decision."

The judge thanked Brucker for the note, saying he was now in a
position to release his ruling as he had earlier indicated -- and
would do so unless there were objections.


CANADA: To Discontinue Third Party Claim in Flood Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
According to The Chronicle Journal, the City reports in a release
sent to media on Feb. 13, that the claimants in the Flood Class
Action that arose out of the May 2012 flood disaster against the
City of Thunder Bay have recently confirmed to the City and the
Court that they are abandoning their previous allegation that the
City failed to enforce the downspout disconnection by-law.

As a result, the City will discontinue its Third Party Claim
against all property owners who did not comply with the downspout
disconnection by-law, and will not be seeking contribution for any
alleged damages caused by the claimants in the Flood Class Action.

Claimants alleged that the City's failure to enforce the by-law
contributed to the overloading of the Atlantic Avenue Secondary
Sewage Treatment Plant and caused damage to their homes.  The
City's position was that there was no merit to this allegation and
defended that claim.

All property owners who received a Third Party Claim will soon be
receiving a notice of discontinuance and will no longer be
required to participate in the Third Party action.

The City will continue to enforce the downspout disconnection by-
law and all property owners are required to comply.

The City will continue to vigorously defend the Flood Class
Action.


CANADA: WSIB Faces Class Action Over Unfair Benefit Cuts
--------------------------------------------------------
Sara Mojtehedzadeh, writing for Toronto Star, reports that a class
action lawsuit alleging Ontario injured workers had their benefits
wrongfully slashed has been granted permission to proceed, after
the province's compensation board sought unsuccessfully to block
the case.

The suit filed by Toronto lawyer Richard Fink against the
Workplace Safety and Insurance Board could impact hundreds of
workers.  It argues accident victims between 2012 and 2014 were
"denied the full extent of benefits to which they were entitled"
as a result of "misfeasance in public office" and "negligence" at
the board.

The class action was originally quashed two years ago by a
Superior Court judge, who said WSIB compensation decisions were
"beyond court challenge."  But in a reversal issued on Feb. 13,
the Court of Appeal ruled it could go ahead.

"This case is about law. As in, the rule of law," Mr. Fink said.
"If you accept what we've argued in our claim, the board may well
be violating the law and should be subject to penalty. And that is
a large step forward because it begins to hold the board
accountable."

In a statement to the Star, board spokesperson Christine Arnott
said the decision needed to be discussed with the WSIB's legal
counsel "before determining how we will respond."

"It is important to note that the decision concerns a procedural
matter, and makes no determinations about the merits of (the
plaintiff's) case," she added.  "We continue to deny the
allegations made in the lawsuit."

Those allegations include that the WSIB sought to unfairly cut
costs through a "secret policy" to "aggressively reduce" the lump
sums awarded to workers with permanent injuries sustained in
workplace accidents.

The policy suggested benefits could be slashed by blaming at least
some of a worker's injury on a pre-existing condition -- even if
that condition had never shown any symptoms before the workplace
accident, according to the lawsuit.

It represented a significant and some say illegal departure from
the founding principles of the worker's compensation system in
Canada: the so-called thin-skull principle, which says workers
cannot be discriminated against because of a pre-existing
condition that had no physical impact on them before an accident.

The board argued there were no grounds for the allegations, and
said it is obliged by law to act in a "financially responsible and
accountable manner" -- which includes reducing payments to injured
workers where appropriate.  It also sought to characterize the
suit's allegations as "those of a disgruntled claimant." Justice
Peter D. Lauwers rejected the board's arguments in the Feb. 13
decision.

The representative plaintiff is former Brampton sewer worker
Pietro Castrillo, who permanently damaged his shoulder at work in
2011.  He was awarded a lump sum of around $3,000 -- but the WSIB
subsequently cut the amount in half because it claimed he suffered
from osteoarthritis in the injured shoulder.

But Mr. Castrillo, now 64, had never previously experienced any
symptoms of osteoarthritis.  He appealed the board's decision and
won.  But he decided to pursue a class action suit after learning
about "a number of injured workers" who were similarly impacted by
the alleged "secret policy" in operation at the board.

"It's not just for me, it's for all these poor people out there
who don't know where to go or what to do," he said. "They get in
accidents and it ruins their lives."

As previously reported by the Star, the overwhelming majority of
appeals from workers who had benefits slashed because of so-called
pre-existing conditions have been overturned by the WSIB's own
independent appeals tribunal since 2012.  But because of backlogs,
it often takes workers' years to win the entitlements they were
owed in the first place.

The board's alleged "secret policy" was operational roughly
between 2012 and 2014, Mr. Fink said.  In November 2015, it was
replaced by a new policy that the board says is compatible with
the thin-skull principle and "provides consistency in decision
making and alignment with other jurisdictions." Decisions made
under the new policy have yet to reach the board's appeals
tribunal because of long wait times.

Between 2012 and 2014, the portion of claimants deemed to have a
permanent injury dropped by 37 per cent, according to the WSIB's
own stakeholder reports.

A Star investigation revealed last year that the WSIB hired U.S.-
based doctor Christopher Brigham in 2012 to review its policy on
awarding benefits to workers with permanent injuries.  The same
doctor is currently embroiled in a legal battle in Hawaii for
allegedly conspiring with a private auto insurance company to
unfairly cut car accident victims' medical benefits.  The
allegations have not been proven in court, and Brigham says he is
a "strong advocate for those who are recovering from injury or
illness."

Fink's class action against the board alleges that the WSIB's
approach to pre-existing conditions was "motivated by a desire to
reduce costs," and "the defendant knew it was acting illegally and
that its actions would harm the plaintiff and class."

The suit must now wait to be certified as a class action, although
the WSIB could also seek an appeal at the Supreme Court of Canada.

Fink noted that under the compensation system, workers' give up
their right to sue their employers in exchange for a fair shot at
compensation if they are hurt on the job.

"This is not an insurance company.  This is a workers'
compensation system.  They are to take care of injured workers
because they've knocked you out of litigation," he said.

"Their mandate should be, try and do the best you can for the
injured worker within reason."


CANADIAN HOCKEY: Judge Orders Franchises to Unseal Fin'l Records
----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Douglas at The Desert Sun reports by order of the Alberta
Court of Queen's Bench Judge Robert Hall, 42 junior franchises
from the Western Hockey League and Ontario Hockey League must
unseal their financial records. Both the WHL and OHL operate under
the corporate umbrella of the Canadian Hockey League.

The legal action targeting the WHL, OHL and parent CHL claims the
businesses failed to properly compensate players even while they
pulled in revenues from ticket sales, television rights and
sponsorships.

According to published reports, in arguing for the right to
proceed with a $180 million class action suit lawyer Steven
Barrett said the teams and the Canadian Hockey League "conspired
with each other to ensure the players were not properly classified
as employees or paid as employees."


Some ex-players say they were paid $60 to $70 a week, a sum they
contend is unfair. The legal firm fighting the case says it has
more than 400 former and current major junior hockey players
registered as interested in forming a class action.

The CHL claims a third of the teams in the WHL and OHL lose money
and a minimum wage would bankrupt several franchises.

Major junior hockey team operators across Canada are anxiously
awaiting the next step that could eventually put them out of
business.

Scene and heard

Scotty Bowman, Murray Costello and Fran Rider have been welcomed
into the prestigious Order of Hockey Canada ranks.

Bowman won 14 Stanley Cups and holds the National Hockey League
record for most wins by a coach with 1,244 in the regular season
and 223 more in playoffs. Costello served as president of the
Canadian Amateur Hockey Association and Hockey Canada from 1979 to
1998. Fran Rider, president and CEO of the Ontario Women's Hockey
Association, has played a key role in the development of women's
hockey since 1967.

Here and there

It has been unanimously accepted in Vancouver NHL circles that
"how go the Sendin twins, so go the Canucks." Daniel and Henrik
are 36 years old and with one year remaining on their existing
contracts critics have been suggesting perhaps it's time for
management to consider shopping them around prior to the March 1
trading deadline.

"I know people say we're too old, we're done," Daniel told hockey
writer Iain MacIntyre. "But I don't look at it that way. We are
playing in the NHL and make a certain amount of money and we are
supposed to help this team make the playoffs. That hasn't changed.
I can speak for both of us when I say we feel strong physically
and mentally."

Daniel scored the winning goal and assisted on another in
Vancouver's 3-0 win in Columbus. In his last 20 games prior to
facing the Blue Jackets, he had scored just once. Heading into the
weekend, Danel had 30 points through 53 games, which doesn't make
a 20-goal season seem unrealistic.

End zone

The late Pat Quinn will be honored prior to the Canucks-Calgary
game in Vancouver with a life-sized bronze statue outside Rogers
Arena. Norman Williams, one of Canada's pre-eminent sculptors,
created the image that depicts the loveable Big Irishman coaching
the Canucks during the 1994 Stanley Cup playoffs. It includes him
holding a roster card engraved with each player's name from the
'94 roster.


CAPITAL WIND: Law Firm Mulls Class Action Over Currandooley Fire
----------------------------------------------------------------
Louise Thrower, writing for Goulburn Post, reports that a
Victorian legal firm is investigating the possibility of mounting
a class action over the Currandooley fire.

The blaze, which burnt through 3387 hectares near Tarago over two
days from January 17, started from a bird strike on Capital Wind
Farm high voltage power lines, a Rural Fire Service investigation
found.  The bird caught fire, dropped to the ground and set off
the blaze near Taylors Creek Road.

Brendan Pendergast, principal of Warnambool-based Maddens Lawyers,
attended the Feb. 13 meeting between State agencies, fire affected
people and the community at Tarago.

He told The Post his firm had been involved in several
"successful" cases involving fires and electrical infrastructure,
including the Blue Mountains blaze several years ago. All of these
had been settled before a verdict was handed down.

"I've been contacted by five to 10 people affected by the
Currandooley fire who are interested in a class action," he said.

"Based on information from them we are making further inquiries
into the circumstances of the fire's start and seeing if the facts
give rise to a class action."

He plans to host a meeting at Tarago soon to gauge interest.
Infigen Energy has rejected any suggestion the wind farm
infrastructure was to blame.

Meantime, Monaro police Inspector Michael Handley told the meeting
that a brief was being prepared for the State Coroner but the
process could be lengthy.  He encouraged those who lost property
or stock to provide statements to police to form part of the
documentation.  The brief will also include the RFS investigation.
It would then be up to the Coroner's office to decide whether to
hold an inquiry into the the "manner and cause of the fire."

Rob Wilson was one of the first firefighters at the scene.  He and
brother Ian own 'Nardoo,' adjoining Currandooley where the fire
started.  The Wilsons lost 100 acres on the 2200-acre sheep
property.

"A fellow in the wind tower saw it start and alerted us," he said.

"We (the Taylors Creek RFS brigade) were there within 15 to 20
minutes."

Mr Wilson verified that it started from a wind farm line running
from the Pylara property to a substation.  Like other
firefighters, he told The Post he saw a burnt bird beneath the
line.

Agencies at the meeting provided advice on rural, financial and
emotional help for landholders.  But some attendees also used the
opportunity to air their concerns.

John Haridemos, 'Kildare,' lost 500 acres on both sides of the
Tarago to Bungendore Road at his Mount Fairy sheep property during
the fire.

He said a heavy hail storm some three years ago "filled" the road
verge with debris which "had never been cleared."

"I still believe we would have lost land but that's where it
jumped the road," he said.

"If there's one thing we can learn it's that the road can be used
as a natural fire break and can limit the damage."

Mr Haridemos said he'd spoken to Palerang Council about the matter
but it was proving to be a stumbling block when it came to
fencing.  BlazeAid was repairing fences in the area but could not
remove trees in the way because they fall under council control.


CARL KARCHER: Hit with Antitrust Class Action
---------------------------------------------
Don Debenedictis at Courthouse News reports that Carl Karcher
Enterprises, whose CEO Andrew Puzder is President Donald Trump's
nominee as secretary of labor, illegally restricts employment and
suppresses pay for fast-food managers through contracts that
prohibit franchisees from hiring each other's workers, Carl's Jr.
employees say in an antitrust class action.

Carl's Jr. shift manager Luis Bautista and former shift manager
Margarita Guerrero say in the Superior Court lawsuit that a no-
hire provision in contracts between the company and its
franchisees prevents experienced managers from moving from one
restaurant to another in search of better pay and working
conditions.

"Together with its franchisees, CKE has colluded to suppress the
wages of the restaurant-based managers, from shift leader up, who
work at Carl's Jr. restaurants in Los Angeles and around the
world. . . . . This 'no hire' agreement is a naked agreement in
restraint of trade," Bautista and Guerrero say in the Feb. 8
complaint.

Carl Karcher Enterprises, or CKE, is the parent company of Carl's
Jr. and Hardees fast-food restaurants. The class action names only
CKE and Carl's Jr. Restaurants as defendants  --  not Hardee's and
not Puzder.

But the 23-page lawsuit quotes Puzder frequently. He is a
prominent advocate of free market ideals and is seen as an
opponent of protections for workers.

Trump nominated Puzder to head the Department of Labor on Dec. 8.
His confirmation hearing has been postponed four times and is set
for Feb. 16 before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions Committee.

Puzder's nomination has drawn strong opposition from labor unions,
workers' rights advocates and Democrats, for his stand against
raising the federal minimum wage, his comments about replacing
fast-food workers through automation and allegations of frequent
labor violations at CKE restaurants, among other things. Puzder
also recently admitted that at one time he hired an undocumented
worker as a housekeeper --  an admission that has torpedoed
Cabinet nominees in previous presidential administrations.

CKE general counsel Charles A. Siegel III said in a statement that
the company would not comment on specifics of the lawsuit. But he
said: "The timing of the filing of this baseless lawsuit is
obviously intended to be an attempt, albeit a feeble one, to
derail the nomination of Andy Puzder. The plaintiffs and their
backers will succeed at neither."

The antitrust class action begins by stating that Puzder "has
professed a deep faith in the 'free market.' Employees do not need
the protection of government intervention in the labor market,
Puzder says, because 'free market capitalism' is the only system
in the history of the world that produces enough economic growth
to meaningfully reduce poverty.'

"But the market for CKE employees is not free."

Lead plaintiff Bautista accepted a promotion to shift leader at a
Carl's Jr. restaurant in Los Angeles in 2015, and received a raise
of less than $2 per hour. His "hours are extraordinarily
unpredictable" and his supervisors "frequently berate him," he
says in the complaint.

Guerrero was a shift leader at a Los Angeles restaurant for about
a year, until late last year. "Her working conditions were
atrocious," the complaint states, and though she was promised a
raise, "she was never paid more than she had been paid as a crew
member."

They both earned a bit more than minimum wage, according to Nina
DiSalvo of the workers' rights nonprofit law office Towards
Justice in Denver, lead attorney for the proposed class. Bautista
and Guerrero "both believe their wages and working conditions were
depressed through the no-hire agreement," DiSalvo said.

CKE directly owns 10 percent to 20 percent of its approximately
3,500 restaurants; franchisees own the rest.

Puzder and the company have repeatedly said that franchisees
operate independently of CKE and each other, according to the
class action. It quotes Puzder telling a congressional hearing
that "franchisees independently choose the people they hire, the
wages and benefits they pay," and so forth.

But in fact, they are all bound by provisions in their franchise
agreements to "not knowingly employ or seek to employ any person
then employed by CKE or any franchisee of CKE as a shift leader or
higher," Bautista and Guerrero say, quoting the contracts.

They quote Puzder again to explain why the company insists on the
provision: "If employers are competing for the best employees,
they will pay more," he said in a speech.

"CKE and Puzder cannot have it both ways," the complaint states.
"They cannot eschew their responsibilities under the labor and
employment laws by embracing a 'free market' model constituted by
independent, competing franchises, while at the same time
restraining free competition to the detriment of the thousands of
workers employed by SKE and its franchises."

It adds: "By Puzder's own logic, this practice [the no-hire
provision] allows employers to pay their employees less."

The complaint cites another statement from Puzder, who said he is
expanding the chain in Texas and the Southeast, because of
"California's nanny state laws."

David Gurnick, a franchise law expert with Lewitt, Hackman,
Shapiro, Marshall & Harlan in Encino, said a 2007 California
appellate ruling, VL Systems v. Unisen, supports the plaintiffs'
position.

"When two parties agree not to hire each other's employees . . .
you're restraining the employees . . . and you didn't ask them,"
he said.

The complaint says that CKE general managers are paid about
$35,000 to $40,000 a year, assistant managers get $10.50 an hour,
and shift leaders about $10 an hour, or about $25,000 a year. The
federal poverty level for a family of four is $24,250.

DiSalvo said she believes no-hire agreements are widespread in the
fast-food industry. Towards Justice began investigating the
practice a while back and "began looking deeper after seeing
publicity about Puzder's statements."

Towards Justice focuses on wage-theft issues, she said. It is
pursuing two national class actions in Denver on behalf of
shepherds and foreign au pairs.

The plaintiffs seek class certification, a permanent injunction
against the no-hire provision, damages and a court order banning
the no-hire provision, and damages for violations of California's
antitrust law, the Cartwright Act, unfair competition, and illegal
covenants not to compete.

Local counsel is Jon Tostrud -- jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com -- of
Tostrud Law Group in Los Angeles, assisted by attorneys with
Cuneo, Miller & Laduca in Washington, D.C.


CARMAX INC: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suits in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
CarMax, Inc., continues to defend itself against putative class
action lawsuits asserting wage and hour claims in California,
according to the Company's January 6, 2017, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
November 30, 2016.

CarMax entities are defendants in three additional proceedings
asserting wage and hour claims with respect to CarMax sales
consultants in California. The asserted claims include failure to
pay minimum wage, provide meal periods and rest breaks, pay
statutory/contractual wages, reimburse for work-related expenses,
provide accurate itemized wage statements; unfair competition; and
Private Attorney General Act claims.

On September 4, 2015, Craig Weiss v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., a
putative class action, was filed in the Superior Court of
California, County of Placer. The Weiss lawsuit seeks civil
penalties, fines, cost of suit, and the recovery of attorneys'
fees.

On June 29, 2016, Ryan Gomez et al. v. CarMax Superstores
California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., a
putative class action, was filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California, Los Angeles. The Gomez lawsuit seeks
declaratory relief, unspecified damages, restitution, statutory
penalties, interest, cost and attorneys' fees.

On September 7, 2016, James Rowland v. CarMax Superstores
California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., a
putative class action, was filed in the U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. The Rowland
lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, restitution, statutory
penalties, interest, cost and attorneys' fees.

The Company says it is unable to make a reasonable estimate of the
amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable
outcome in these matters.

CarMax, Inc., including its wholly owned subsidiaries, is the
largest retailer of used vehicles in the United States.  The
Company operates in two reportable segments:  CarMax Sales
Operations and CarMax Auto Finance.  The Company's CarMax Sales
Operations segment consists of all aspects of its auto
merchandising and service operations, excluding financing provided
by CAF.  The Company's CAF segment consists solely of our own
finance operation that provides financing to customers buying
retail vehicles from CarMax.


CHICAGO, IL: Forces Subcontractors Into Arbitration Over Disputes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk at Cook County Record reports that Chicago-based,
minority-owned petroleum and equipment supplier has spearheaded a
class action against the city of Chicago, accusing City Hall of
improperly applying rules that force minority-owned subcontractors
into arbitration over contract disputes, effectively blocking them
from suing general contractors who may have failed to sufficiently
utilize the minority-owned subcontractors, as required by city
ordinance.

On Feb. 8, DWJ Petroleum, which according to its website, has
locations in Chicago and suburban Bloomingdale, filed suit in Cook
County Circuit Court against the city and landscaping contracting
firm, Jaclynn Inc., which does business as Gilio Landscape
Contractors.

DWJ's website promotes the business as a certified "minority
business enterprise" (MBE), and touts a long list of services,
focused primarily on the supply of blades and other cutting
implements, as well as petroleum products, for use by contractors.

The lawsuit centers on the city's involvement in a dispute between
DWJ and Gilio over Gilio's alleged failure to allow DWJ to work to
fulfill a purported a commitment made in 2006 to hire and employ
DWJ made in a contract Gilio received from the city for weed
trimming work. The commitment was allegedly made to allow Gilio to
satisfy the city's rules requiring a certain percentage of
projects to go to businesses owned by minorities and women.

DWJ's lawsuit said the city sent a letter in January 2017
affirming the city's belief Gilio had fallen short of its
commitment to utilize DWJ under the terms of its contract with the
city. According to the complaint, Gilio allegedly had agreed to
pay DWJ nearly $440,000 for its services.

However, the letter also informed DWJ it had just 15 days to
notify the city if it wished to press any claims against Gilio,
and also notified DWJ that under city rules, those claims must be
submitted to binding arbitration, at the initial expense of DWJ.
If the subcontractor doesn't act within 15 days, the city would
consider the matter closed.

DWJ alleged there is "no formal rule or regulation that imposes
the 15 day time limit" and the city's "special conditions"
requiring arbitration violate the city's Municipal Code. The
lawsuit said DWJ believes the code calls for contractors, not
their subs, to bear burden of pressing for -- and paying for --
arbitration in disputes with the minority-owned subcontractors.

The lawsuit said DWJ believes such letters and demands are typical
of those received by all minority- and women-owned businesses
involved in similar disputes with city contractors.

"The purposes of the Special Conditions and the arbitrary 15 day
time-frame is to subvert MBE/WBE's ability to bring their rightful
claims," the lawsuit asserts.

The lawsuit asks the court to order the city to change all
existing contracts involving MBE or WBE subcontractors to
eliminate the "special conditions" requiring arbitration, and to
wipe out the "arbitrary time-frames" giving the subcontractors
just 15 days to decide whether to pay for arbitration, or allow
the matter to be closed.

The lawsuit seeks to expand the action to include potentially all
MBE and WBE subcontractors who had received similar letters and
arbitration demands from the city.

DWJ is represented in the matter by attorneys with the Ayres Law
Offices, of Chicago.


CHICAGO, IL: Court Denies Appeal From Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
Fran Spielman at Chicago Suntimes reports Mayor Rahm Emanuel's
administration suffered yet another setback on February 10 in its
attempt to avoid refunding $200 million in fines and late fees
issued to Chicagoans denied due process after being slapped with
1.5 million red-light and speed camera tickets.

The Illinois Appellate Court refused to hear the city's appeal of
a lower court decision certifying the high-stakes lawsuit as a
class action.

The decision means that the case that could ultimately lead to
refunds will continue before Circuit Court Judge Pamela McLean
Meyerson.

That's significant because it was McLean Meyerson's now-retired
predecessor Kathleen Kennedy who accused City Hall last year of
violating the "fundamental principles of justice, equity and good
conscience" by failing to send those drivers a second notice of
their violations.

The judge said City Hall further erred by imposing $100 late fees
when payment was not received within 21 days of a liability
determination in some cases --  even after the law was changed in
2012 to require a 25-day grace period.

Technically, Kennedy at that point simply rejected the city's
motion to dismiss the case and kept alive a lawsuit Zolna filed on
behalf of a pair of ticketed motorists.

But the wording of her ruling was so strong, there was little
doubt thousands of red-light and speed camera tickets issued since
2003 would ultimately be nullified.

Kennedy's subsequent ruling certifying the lawsuit as a class-
action was a pivotal next step. Friday's ruling keeps the class
intact.

"The city said, `Look at the case. This class has no merit. It
shouldn't be a class-action. But, the Appellate Court said,
`Thanks, but no thanks.' They took a pass," said plaintiffs'
attorney Jacie Zolna.

"If the Appellate Court had agreed to hear the appeal, it would
have significantly delayed a case that very likely will result in
all of these tickets being wiped off the books."

"The city has always maintained that these tickets are valid, and
we will continue to vigorously defend against this suit," Law
Department spokesman Bill McCaffrey said.

Last fall, the City Council approved Emanuel's plan to give 1.5
million impacted motorists a second chance to challenge their
tickets.

But Zolna filed yet another lawsuit challenging the do-over on
grounds that it violates "virtually every procedural requirement"
of the Illinois Vehicle Code and "completely undermines its
purpose to ensure the 'fair and efficient' adjudication" of speed
and red light camera violations. That case continues before the
same judge.

Meanwhile, the city's notices to the impacted motorists has caused
"mass confusion," Zolna said. That's because the city's letter
ignores the pending legal case that could invalidate the very
tickets the city is attempting to re-adjudicate. It was not known
how many motorists have taken the city up on its offer of a re-
hearing.

Retiring Corporation Counsel Steve Patton -- spatton@patton-
lee.com -- of Patton & Lee, LLC has argued that the do-over
hearings would "bolster our defense" of the pending lawsuit and
"form the basis for a fair and reasonable settlement." But he has
emphatically maintained that a "procedural failure does not render
a ticket invalid" and that there is no justification for blanket
refunds.

"Those tickets are valid. The violation occurred. The red light
was run. Somebody sped," Patton told aldermen last month. "What
we're talking about is a subsequent procedural error. And it
shouldn't be the opportunity for a gotcha to have a windfall for
thousands and thousands of people to avoid any liability and get a
refund."


CMRE FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Collection Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that an individual has filed a class-action lawsuit against a debt
collector over claims it did not have permission to contact the
plaintiff.

Taneesha Crooks filed a complaint on behalf of all others
similarly situated on Feb. 10 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California against CMRE Financial Services
Inc. alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that in 2016,
she suffered damages from receiving several unwanted calls from
the defendant and from being charged for those calls.  The
plaintiff holds CMRE Financial Services, Inc. responsible because
the defendant allegedly kept on calling the plaintiff despite her
request to stop calling.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks $500 in statutory
damages, $1,500 in treble damages, injunctive relief and any other
relief this court deems just.  She is represented by Joshua B.
Swigart and Yana A. Hart of Kazerouni Law Group APC in San Diego.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California Case
number 3:17-cv-00270-H-JLB


CVS PHARMACY: Suit to Proceed After Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss
------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland at Conty Cook Record reports a class action suit
against CVS Pharmacy and its MinuteClinic will proceed after a
federal judge in Chicago denied a motion to dismiss the complaint,
saying the drug store chain can't shake the lawsuit accusing them
of breaking federal anti-robocalling laws when the clinic placed
calls to people's mobile phones to remind them about getting flu
shots.

U.S. District Judge John Z. Lee issued a memorandum opinion and
order Feb. 9 allowing plaintiffs Carl Lowe and Kearby Kaiser to
continue to press their complaint. They accuse CVS of violating
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Illinois Automatic
Telephone Dialers Act by using an automated system to place
unsolicited, prerecorded calls regarding flu shots.

The complaint alleged CVS called Kaiser's cell phone on Sept. 11,
2013, using an auto-dialing service from West Corporation, which
is also named as a defendant, to report that flu shots were
available. Kaiser, who lives in Chicago, got a flu vaccine at CVS
in 2012. The defendants moved to dismiss based on Kaiser's
testimony he was on vacation out of the country the date of the
call, arguing a lack of personal jurisdiction over MinuteClinic.
In response, Kaiser submitted evidence to correct his deposition
testimony reflecting he actually was in Illinois on Sept. 11,
2013.

Before considering the merits of CVS' objections, Judge Lee
analyzed whether, as Kaiser argued, the defendants waived their
objections to the matter of personal jurisdiction. Although he
agreed with Kaiser, Lee also said he would address the larger
issue.

"Kaiser's deposition testimony does not unequivocally establish
that he was out of the country when he received MinuteClinic's
call," Lee wrote, noting that his deposition "was internally
inconsistent" and the affidavit he filed later was done, not to
contradict, but rather "aims to explain and resolve the
inconsistency." Regardless, Lee said, "the court would still have
personal jurisdiction over MinuteClinic. . . . Kaiser would have
learned of the call only when he returned to Illinois following
his vacation, as he testified that his phone was turned off when
the call was placed. Thus, the relevant injury would center around
Kaiser's retrieval of the voicemail in question upon his return to
Illinois.

"Leaving a prerecorded voicemail that is later retrieved in
Illinois, where the area code of the phone number at issue is
affiliated with Illinois, the number was obtained when a customer
visited a MinuteClinic in Illinois, and the message directs the
customer to the Illinois market, is sufficient to constitute
purposeful direction from which this court can exercise
jurisdiction."

CVS attempted to argue subjecting MinuteClinic to the personal
jurisdiction might lead to future TCPA claims in any state where
someone listened to a voicemail, but Lee stressed Kaiser listened
to the call in Illinois, which should not have surprised CVS, as
it called his 312 area code phone number and had record of him
visiting an Illinois MinuteClinic.

Lee concluded by noting his "exercise of jurisdiction over
MinuteClinic comports with traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice, particularly given that MinuteClinic has
already participated in litigation before the court for over two
years and it would be most just and efficient to permit Kaiser's
claims to proceed."

Since Lee found personal jurisdiction over MinuteClinic
appropriate, he similarly found it acceptable to extend that
jurisdiction to CVS and West, since the claims arise from the
Sept. 11 voicemail and other calls.

The plaintiffs are represented in the action by attorneys with the
firms of Broderick & Paronich, of Boston; Murray Murphy Moul Basil
LLP, of Columbus, Ohio; Law Office Of Matthew Mccue, of Natick,
Mass.; Burke Law Offices LLC, of Chicago; and Broderick Law P.C.,
of Boston.

CVS and MinuteClinic are defended by the firm of Foley & Lardner,
of Chicago.


CVS PHARMACY: Vitamin C Made in USA Labeling Class Action Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Archer, writing for Law360, reports that an Illinois federal
judge on Feb. 13 dismissed a putative class action claiming CVS
Pharmacy was selling vitamin C drops falsely labeled as made in
the U.S., saying the consumer failed to show he had been harmed.
U.S. District Judge John W. Darrah dismissed David deMedicis'
complaint without prejudice, saying he had failed to show CVS'
alleged deceptive labeling had caused him to spend extra money on
vitamins now or would do so in the future.

"Plaintiff merely alleges that he prefers products made in the
United States and that he is willing to pay a premium for them,"
Judge Darrah wrote.  "However, plaintiff does not allege that the
supplements were more expensive because they were marked 'Made in
USA.'"

Mr. DeMedicis claimed that in June he purchased CVS-brand vitamin
C supplement drops from an Illinois store that were labeled "Made
in the USA" when they actually contained both vitamin C and sodium
ascorbate sourced outside the U.S.  He claimed other CVS vitamin C
products had similar deceptive labeling.

"Plaintiff has suffered damages because he paid more for the
products than they were actually worth," his complaint said. "In
addition, plaintiff has not received the benefit of his bargain in
choosing an American-made product."

CVS moved for dismissal on the grounds that Mr. deMedicis had
failed to state what the product cost, make a claim for what the
drops should be worth, or provide the price of a vitamin C drops
product without a "Made in the USA" label for comparison.

Judge Darrah agreed on Feb. 13, noting that while Mr. deMedicis
had said CVS' misleading labels would likely cause him to buy more
deceptively labeled products in the future, that outcome seemed
unlikely.

"Plaintiff is now aware that defendants allegedly deceptively
label products as 'Made in USA' and, as such, is not likely to be
harmed in the future," Judge Darrah wrote.

CVS had also sought dismissal of Mr. deMedicis' request for class
certification, but Judge Darrah said ruling on CVS' arguments
would be premature at this stage of the case.

Counsel for Mr. deMedicis and CVS did not immediately respond to
requests for comment on Feb. 13.

Mr. DeMedicis is represented by John E. Norris of Davis & Norris
LLP, and Gerald Bekkerman and Jennifer Bekkerman of Bekkerman Law
Offices LLC.

CVS is represented by Kristin B. Ives of Falkenberg Fieweger &
Ives LLP and Thomas Holderness of Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson P.A.

The case is Davis deMedicis v. CVS Health Corp. et. al., case
number 16-cv-5973, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.


DEJA VU SERVICES: Injunction Bid in "Jane Doe 1" Suit Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III granted the joint motion for
preliminary injunction filed by the parties in the case captioned
JANE DOE 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DEJA VU SERVICES, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-10877 (E.D. Mich.).

Jane Doe 1 filed a class and collective action complaint against
Deja Vu Services, Inc., DV Saginaw, LLC, and Harry Mohney,
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Michigan's
Workforce Opportunity Wage Act.

The parties reached -- and the Court preliminarily approved -- a
class settlement.  If granted final approval, the parties' $6.5
million settlement would resolve the claims of 45,000-50,000
current and former workers from 64 Deja-Vu-affiliated night clubs.
The parties moved the Court to enjoin all pending proceedings
against the defendants in 12 different federal and state courts.

Judge Murphy found that a preliminary injunction on parallel
proceedings is warranted because conflicting orders from other
courts would undermine the Court's jurisdiction and create a risk
of inconsistent judgments, duplicative litigation, and a lack of
finality for the class members and the defendants.

Additionally, Judge Murphy found that the parties have shown a
strong likelihood of success on the merits, considering that the
Court has granted preliminary approval to the parties' settlement
agreement and found the settlement terms reasonable, fair, and
adequate.

Judge Murphy also found that since the matter involves an
injunction to protect the Court's jurisdiction, no showing of
irreparable injury is required.

Judge Murphy further found that the injunction will not cause harm
to others and that the injunction serves the public interest
because it will bring finality to the dispute, eliminate the risk
of duplicative proceedings, decrease the cost of litigation,
eliminate the risk of conflicting results, and allow the parties
to implement the negotiated class-wide settlement.

Judge Murphy thus held that the Court will exercise its authority
under the All Writs Act to enjoin all related proceedings against
the defendants pending final approval of the class action
settlement.

A full-text copy of Judge Schneider's February 9, 2017 order is
available at https://is.gd/brD2sa from Leagle.com.

Jane Doe 1, Plaintiff, represented by Jason J. Thompson --
jthompson@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Jesse L. Young
-- jyoung@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz, Megan Bonanni, Pitt,
McGehee & Rachael Elizabeth Kohl, Pitt McGehee Palmer & Rivers PC.

Deja Vu Consulting, Inc, DV Saginaw, LLC, Deja Vu Showgirls, Harry
Mohney, Deja Vu Services, Inc., Defendants, represented by Bradley
J. Shafer, Shafer Assoc. & Matthew J. Hoffer, Shafer and Assoc.


DITECH FINANCIAL: "Scally" Suit Precluded by Bankruptcy Discharge
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Q. Hayes of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California granted Defendants'
motion to dismiss the case captioned, KENDALL SCALLY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 16CV1992-WQH-WVG (S.D.
Cal.).

Plaintiff Kendall Scally is alleged to have incurred certain
financial obligations with HFC Company, LLC, whereby he received a
line of credit for his use within his personal life for everyday
purchases.  Plaintiff ultimately had the debt discharged by way of
bankruptcy in the year 1998, while the debt was still in the
possession of the original creditor.

On September 30, 2016, Plaintiff filed the first amended class
action complaint against Defendant. Plaintiff alleges two causes
of action against Defendant on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated: (1) violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA); and (2) violations of the Rosenthal Fair
Debt Collections Practices Act (Rosenthal Act).

Defendant contends that the first amended complaint must be
dismissed for failure to state a claim. Defendant contends that
Plaintiff's FDCPA and Rosenthal Act claims are precluded by the
Bankruptcy Code because they arise from Defendant's alleged
attempts to collect a debt discharged in bankruptcy. Defendant
contends that Plaintiff fails to plead facts to support FDCPA or
Rosenthal Act violations "independent of an alleged bankruptcy
discharge injunction."

Plaintiff contends that his claims are not precluded by the
Bankruptcy Code because Defendant was not the original creditor
and was not specifically enjoined by the bankruptcy court from
attempting to enforce the debt. Plaintiff contends that Defendant
is not subject to the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction because it
is not the original creditor, was not served with the discharge
injunction, and was not involved with the bankruptcy proceeding.

In his Order dated January 26, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/B7omoz from Leagle.com, Judge Hayes concluded that
Plaintiff's allegations are dependent on the discharged nature of
the debt and are properly addressed under the remedial scheme
provided for in the Bankruptcy Code.

Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date the Order is issued to
file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint.

Kendall Scally, Plaintiff, represented by Babak Semnar, Esq. --
Bob@SemnarLawFirm.com -- and Jared M. Hartman, Esq. --
Jared@SemnarLawFirm.com -- SEMNAR & HARTMAN LLP

            -- and --

       Asil A. Mashiri, Esq.
       MASHIRI LAW FIRM
       9750 Miramar Rd #214, San Diego, CA 92126, USA
       Tel: (858)348-4938

Ditech Financial, LLC is represented by Mathew McKenna Wrenshall,
Esq. -- mwrenshall@reedsmith.com -- and -- Perry Anthony
Napolitano, Esq. -- pnapolito@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP


DOREL JUVENILE: Gathering Details Following Costco Car Seats Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erianne Leatherman at Legal Newsline reports a California consumer
has filed a class action lawsuit against the manufacturer of the
Cosco brand of car seats for allegedly overstating height and
weight limits on its car seats.

A class action lawsuit was filed by Arriane Henryhand on behalf of
herself and others in a similar situation on Jan. 9 in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California against
Dorel Juvenile Group Inc. The lawsuit alleges Henryhand sustained
damages after she was deceived into purchasing a Cosco convertible
car seat that she alleges doesn't function as labeling says it
does.

"At this time, details regarding this situation are still being
gathered," Rick Leckner, president of MaisonBrison Communications,
which represents Dorel, told Legal Newsline.

"Further, as a matter of policy, Dorel Juvenile does not comment
on pending litigation."

Court documents filed on Jan. 26 say that a Stipulation Extending
Time to Answer the complaint was issued to Dorel Juvenile Group
Inc. Its answer is now due on March 3, 2017.

"We [Dorel] remain focused on children, families and overall care
for precious life," Leckner said.

The lawsuit states that Dorel allegedly labeled its Cosco Apt 40
and 50 car seats for rear-facing children between 5 and 40 pounds,
or 19 to 40 inches in height. The lawsuit also says the car seats
were allegedly labeled for forward-facing children who are 22-40
pounds, or 34 to 43 inches in height.

"However, on information and belief, the Cosco Apt 40 Convertible
Car Seat and its successor, the Cosco Apt 50 Convertible Car Seat,
fail to accommodate children up to these advertised height and
weight limits," the lawsuit says.

However, according to the lawsuit, Dorel failed to reveal the
accurate actual height and weight specifications of the seat, and
Henryhand alleges that the car seats don't fit children up to the
advertised height and weight.

"As a result of its height and weight limit claims, consumers
purchase the Cosco Apt Car Seats under the false expectation that
the car seats will be suitable for children until they can be
moved to a booster seat, which is the primary purpose of utilizing
convertible car seats," the suit states. "Unfortunately, this is
rarely, if ever, the case."

The lawsuit says Henryhand seeks a trial by jury, compensatory,
exemplary, and statutory damages in addition to interest,
disgorgement, all legal fees, as well as interest and any other
equitable relief.

The most recent court documents, filed on Feb. 3, state that
Henryhand has asked for more time to file her motion to certify a
class.


DUPONT: Settles WV, Ohio PFOA Class Action for $671 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Howard Weiss-Tisman, writing for VPR, reports that a lawyer
involved with a class-action suit in Bennington says a $671
million settlement by the company that made PFOA highlights the
dangers of the chemical.

DuPont manufactured the chemical PFOA at its plant in West
Virginia, and on Feb. 13 the company announced that it settled
3,550 lawsuits from people in West Virginia and Ohio who say they
developed cancer after being exposed to the industrial chemical

In a press release, the company said it denied any wrongdoing in
the alleged health claims linked to exposure to PFOA.

Patrick Bernal is one of the attorneys leading a class action suit
against the company Saint-Gobain, which owned the factory in
Bennington that used PFOA. Vermont officials say the Chemfab plant
poisoned about 270 wells in the area.

"The size of the DuPont settlement suggests to us that PFOA is
dangerous and that DuPont is fortunately taking some
responsibility for the problems they've caused," Mr. Bernal said.
"We hope Saint-Gobain ultimately does the same."

A trial date was set for October, 2018, for the Vermont class
action suit.

Environmental Working Group president Ken Cook said though the
West Virginia and Ohio cases were significant, the chemical
continues to show up all over the country.

"PFOA contaminates the tap water of 7 million Americans, pollutes
the blood of virtually everyone and is found in the most remote
parts of the planet," said Mr. Cook.  "We celebrate the fact that
justice has been served for tens of thousands of people in the
mid-Ohio Valley, but we can't forget that PFOA and related
nonstick compounds will continue to threaten our health for a
long, long time."

DuPont lost three previous PFOA lawsuits.  The settlements
announced on Feb. 13 comes from a 2001 class action suit filed on
behalf of more than 50,000 in the Ohio River Valley who lived near
DuPont's plant in Parkersburg, West Virginia.


DURHAM SCHOOL: Wants School Bus Crash Class Action Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Kendi A. Rainwater at Times Free Press reports while acknowledging
the tragedy of the fatal Woodmore Elementary school bus crash on
Nov. 21, Durham School Services says it should not be held liable
in federal court.

Durham, the company contracted to provide busing services to
Hamilton County Schools, filed a response on February 8 to the
federal class-action lawsuit filed against it in December. In the
response, Durham claims it did not violate the plaintiffs'
constitutional rights and the case should be dismissed.

"The accident should not have happened; this is beyond dispute,"
Durham states in the response. "That said, however, plaintiffs
have a proper and adequate remedy in a state court tort action."

Eight lawsuits have been filed against Durham in state court in
connection with the case, the lawsuit claims.

"Like those cases, this case against Durham is about its alleged
negligence in hiring, training, and supervising [the bus driver],"
the response claims. "... this case is not about a deprivation of
plaintiffs' Constitution rights or a conspiracy to do so, and
therefore must be dismissed."

In state court, Tennessee's tort reform law limits the payout of
personal damages families of the children killed in the Nov. 21
crash can receive at $750,000.

In federal court, the tort restrictions are not binding if its
determined a plaintiffs' constitutional rights are violated.

The 24-year-old bus driver, Johnthony Walker, is not named in this
federal lawsuit, but faces charges of vehicular homicide, reckless
endangerment and reckless driving. He is being held in the
Hamilton County Jail. Police say he was going about 20 mph over
the posted speed limit on Talley Road in Brainerd when he crashed
the bus, killing six students.

The class-action lawsuit names Hamilton County Schools, district
Transportation Supervisor Ben Coulter and Durham School Services,
claiming each party failed to take reasonable precautions to
prevent the tragedy.

The school district, Coulter and Durham School Services received
complaints about the bus driver, 24-year-old Johnthony Walker,
before the crash but did nothing to protect the 37 students who
continued riding his bus, according to the lawsuit filed in
December.

"This horror was foreseeable, predictable and preventable," the
lawsuit claims.

Attorney Ronald Berke filed the lawsuit for a family of a survivor
of the crash and on behalf of all the passengers and their
families. The lawsuit estimates that is about 100 people.

Hamilton County Schools or Coulter are yet to file a response in
this case.

Attorney James M. Burd -- james.burd@wilsonelser.com -- of Wilson
Esler filed a response on behalf of Durham.


EATON CORP: Denial of Class Cert. Bid in Antitrust Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit affirmed in part
and vacated, in part, the district court's order and remanded the
case captioned IN RE: CLASS 8 TRANSMISSION INDIRECT PURCHASER
ANTITRUST LITIGATION. RYAN AVENARIUS, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated; BIG GAIN, INC.; CARLETON TRANSPORT
SERVICE; JAMES CORDES, on behalf of Cordes Inc.; MEUNIER
ENTERPRISES LLC; PAUL PROSPER; RODNEY E. JAEGAR; PURDY BROTHERS
TRUCKING CO. INC.; TC CONSTRUCTION CO. INC.; PHILLIP E. NIX,
Appellants, No. 15-3791 (3rd Cir.).

A putative antitrust class action was commenced alleging a
conspiracy among manufacturers of heavy-duty trucks and a supplier
of transmissions to maintain the supplier's monopoly in the heavy-
duty truck transmissions market.  The appellees are four
manufacturers of Class 8 trucks and Eaton Corporation, the primary
supplier of Class 8 transmissions.  The appellants are "indirect"
purchasers of Class 8 transmissions insofar as they purchased
trucks containing Eaton transmissions from authorized agents or
dealers of the truck manufacturers.

The appellants alleged that the conspiracy resulted in their
paying artificially inflated prices for trucks that contained the
transmissions at issue.  After the appellants moved for class
certification, the District Court found, inter alia, that they
failed to meet the requirement in Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure that common questions predominate over
individual questions in order for the class to be certified.

On appeal, the Third Circuit was satisfied that the District Court
procedurally and substantively conducted a "rigorous analysis" of
the appellants' theory of class-wide impact and available
evidence, and that the District Court did not abuse its discretion
in its analysis.  The appellate court agreed with the District
Court that the appellants have failed to demonstrate that class-
wide evidence could prove antitrust impact, and therefore the
appellants have not established that common questions will
predominate.

However, the Third Circuit concluded that the District Court erred
in dismissing the appellants' individual claims.  The appellate
court noted that in each of their complaints, the appellants
explicitly brought their claims "on behalf of themselves," and on
behalf of the putative indirect purchaser class.  Further, prior
to the District Court's addressing the appellants' motion for
class certification, the Court has concluded that the appellants'
individual state antitrust claims should not be subject to
dismissal.  Then, as a result of, inter alia, predominance issues,
the District Court improperly ruled that the entire action should
be dismissed despite its earlier ruling that the appellants'
individual claims survived.  Therefore, the Third Circuit vacated
the portion of the District Court's order dismissing the
appellants' individual claims and remanded to the District Court
for further proceedings on these claims.

A full-text copy of Third Circuit's February 9, 2017 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/b7GKUH from Leagle.com.


ELEFTHERIA RESTURANT: "Chuisaca" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid OT, Tips
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Chuisaca, Ricardo Barcenas and Celestino Cruz, on behalf of
themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiffs,
v. Eleftheria Restaurant CORP., Dimitrios Mitsios, Jaime Rodriguez
a/k/a Jimmy Rodriguez, Jaleene Rodriguez, Jewelle Rodriguez and
Joseph D. Nieves, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00528, (E.D. N.Y.,
January 30, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages,
unpaid wages due to time-shaving, illegally retained gratuities,
liquidated damages, unpaid spread of hours, statutory penalties
and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and New York Labor Law.

Defendants operate a restaurant enterprise operating three
restaurants Don Coqui Astoria at 28-18 31st Street, Astoria, NY
11102, Don Coqui New Rochelle at 115 Cedar Street, New Rochelle,
NY 10801 and Salsa Con Fuego at 2297 Cedar Avenue, Bronx, NY
10468.

Chuisaca, Barcenas and Cruz were hired by Defendants to work as
busboy, waiter and food preparer at Don Coqui Astoria restaurant
respectively.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      Anne Seelig, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 465-1188
      Fax: (212) 465-1181


ENERGY TRANSFER: Harwood Feffer Probing Claims Over Sunoco Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Harwood Feffer LLP is investigating potential claims against the
board of directors of Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. ("Energy
Transfer Partners" or the "Company") (ETP) concerning the proposed
acquisition of the Company by Sunoco Logistics Partners L.P..

Under the terms of the offer, Sunoco would acquire Energy Transfer
Partners in a transaction that values Energy Transfer Partners at
approximately $21.3 billion. Pursuant to the deal, Energy Transfer
Partners unitholders will receive 1.5 common units of Sunoco for
each unit owned, valued at approximately $37.03.  At least one
Wall Street analyst had set a price target for Energy Transfer
Partners units of $55.00.

A class action has been filed opposing the transaction in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware, C.A. No. 1:17-cv-
00141-UNA. Large holders of Energy Transfer Partners units may
seek to serve as lead plaintiff.

If you own greater than $100,000 worth of Energy Transfer Partners
units and wish to discuss this matter with us, or have any
questions concerning your rights and interests with regard to this
matter, please contact:

         Robert I. Harwood, Esq.
         Benjamin I. Sachs-Michaels, Esq.
         Harwood Feffer LLP
         488 Madison Avenue
         New York, New York 10022
         Tel No: (877) 935-7400
                 (212)935-7400
         E-mail: bsachsmichaels@hfesq.com

Harwood Feffer has been representing individual and institutional
investors for many years, serving as lead counsel in numerous
cases in federal and state courts. Please visit the Harwood Feffer
LLP website (http://www.hfesq.com)for more information about the
firm.


ESPANOLA EQUITIES: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Vargas" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enil Edgardo Lanza Vargas, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Espanola Equities, LLC d/b/a The Clay Hotel,
Amy Seltzer, Edward Seltzer, and Beverly S. Anderson, Case No.
1:17-cv-20405-FAM (S.D. Fla., January 30, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime and minimum
wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate The Clay Hotel located at 1438
Washington Ave, Miami Beach, FL 33139.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
      E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


FORD CANADA: To Settle All Litigations on PowerStroke Engines
-------------------------------------------------------------
Class action proceeding lawsuits were initiated in Ontario and
Quebec on behalf of owners and lessees of Ford vehicles equipped
with these engines.  Ford has denied all allegations of wrongdoing
asserted in these actions, including any claims that the engines
are defective, or that Ford is liable to any member of the
proposed class.  Nonetheless, Ford has agreed, in a national
settlement agreement that settles all litigation in Canada
relating to these vehicles, to provide partial reimbursement for
post-warranty repairs to certain engine components or
reimbursement of certain deductibles paid.

The Courts in Ontario and Quebec have now approved the settlement
agreement as being fair, reasonable and in the interests of Class
Members. The Courts have also approved a request from Class
Counsel for counsel fees, disbursements and taxes.

SUBMITTING CLAIMS FOR CASH -- To file a claim for cash payments,
if eligible, and to learn more about your potential benefits visit
www.dieselsettlement.ca or call 1-844-447-7249 (Toll Free). A
Claim Form is currently available on the Settlement Website. If
you intend to submit a claim, you must do so before the expiry of
the Claim Period, which is July 31, 2017.

Your Claim must be sent to the Claims Administrator at the
following address:

Canadian navistar diesel engine class action settlement
claims administration center
P.O. Box 37, Windsor A, Windsor, Ontario, Canada, N9A 6J5

Your Legal Rights and Options in this Settlement:

Make a Claim -- if you qualify and wish to seek reimbursement, you
will need to submit a Claim Form and supporting information. Claim
Forms are available on the Settlement Website at
www.dieselsettlement.ca

Opt Out -- If you don't want to be legally bound by the
Settlement, you must complete and submit an Opt Out Form to the
Claims Administrator so that it is received by the Opt Out
Deadline of March 17, 2017. Anyone who opts out will not be bound
by the Settlement Agreement, and will not be eligible to claim
benefits under the Agreement, but may be eligible to pursue an
individual claim. A copy of the Opt Out form is on the website.

A copy of the Settlement Agreement and the Long Form of Settlement
Approval Notice (the "Long Form Notice") can be viewed at
www.dieselsettlement.ca or can be obtained by contacting Class
Counsel:

         Jeff Orenstein
         Consumer Law Group Inc.
         102-1030 rue Berri
         Montreal, QC  H2L 4C3
         Phone: 1-888-909-7863 Toll Free
         514-266-7863 Montreal
         416-479-4493 Toronto
         613-627-4894 Ottawa
         E-mail: jorenstein@clg.org


FORD MOTOR: NCC Receives Around 100 Kuga Fire Complaints
--------------------------------------------------------
Antoinette Slabbert, writing for Moneyweb, reports that formal
complaints from Ford Kuga owners are streaming in to the National
Consumer Commission (NCC) as Ford refuses to answer questions put
to it about the matter.

By February 10 the NCC had received altogether around 100
complaints from Ford Kuga owners about several different matters
relating to their vehicles and at least a further 50 are on their
way.

This follows after the Commission intervened in December as more
and more incidents were reported of Ford Kuga's igniting while on
the road.  The Commission stepped up its pressure on Ford SA to
take action in January when the frequency of such fires increased
drastically and Ford a month ago announced the recall of 4 556
Ford Kuga 1.6 litre vehicles manufactured in Spain in 2013 and
2014.

Fatality denied

Ford has denied that the death of advertising executive Reshall
Jimmy who burnt to death in his Kuga in December 2015 is related
to the coolant problem they ascribe the fires to.  The company
stated, contrary to the findings of forensic investigator Dr David
Klatsow that the fire in Jimmy's vehicle started at the back,
while the others started in the front of the vehicle.

Jimmy's family is fighting for the company to take responsibility
for his death and is driving a prospective class action against
the company.

NCC spokesperson Trevor Hattingh told Moneyweb the Commission has
received an initial batch of 39 complaints and a subsequent batch
from the Jimmy family's attorney Ron Montana. Over and above that,
members of the public also hand complaints in directly to the
Commission.

He said the complaints address a variety of issues and the
Commission is working through them before deciding on the way
forward. "The Ford matter is a priority for the Commission," he
said.

Jimmy's sister Renisha Jimmy told Moneyweb that a further batch of
around 50 complaints would be handed to the NCC, probably on
February 13.  She said the initial 39 complaints did not include
all Kuga owners whose vehicles caught fire. The outstanding
complaints that have been handed to the Commission since brings
the total to about 50, she says.

The other 50 complaints already with the Commission and the last
50 that are on their way deal with different issues, including
overheating, electrical issues and loss of resale value.  She said
the complaints are not limited to the 4 556 vehicles that have
been recalled, but includes other Kuga models and also other Ford
vehicles.

Renisha Jimmy said the complainants hope that the Commission will
in this week decide to institute a formal investigation into the
Ford matter.  If not, the complainants will escalate the matter to
the Consumer Tribunal.

A formal investigation would authorise the Commission to appoint
its own experts to get to the bottom of the problems.

Renisha Jimmy said they met with the Commission and requested it
to pay special attention to her brother's matter due to the
seriousness of it.

No answers from Ford

Ford did not answer questions Moneyweb put to it.  These related
to the subsidy Ford SA offers to dealers to trade in Kugas from
owners who don't want them anymore, whether it has made contact
with Kuga owner Shaun Thompson whose 2.5 litre model caught fire
in 2015, compensation for owners whose vehicles were destroyed or
damaged by fire, reports about a similar incident in New Zealand
recently, the number of vehicles that have completed the first
phase of the recall and progress towards the second phase.

Instead, Ford SA sent Moneyweb a generic 4-page statement.  In its
statement Ford says it met with the Commission to update it about
the progress made on the recall.

It said there have been no incidents since the recall was
announced on January 16 and adds: "While Ford manufactures cars
with the safety of their customers top-of-mind, all vehicles are
occasionally susceptible to issues in the design and manufacturing
process that can lead to performance and quality issues under
certain conditions.  In such instances, Ford must determine what
steps to take, including initiating a recall. This is driven by a
case-by-case analysis."

It again denies that the identified problem with the coolant
system led to any fatalities or injuries.

Ford SA CEO Jeff Nemeth adds: "I want to stress that with the
first stage of the safety recall completed, and with proper
maintenance of the coolant system, the 1.6 litre Kuga is safe to
drive."

Mean time in Mbombela . . .

In the meantime Kuga owner Thulani Hlope from Mbombela had a close
call when his 2013 Ford Kuga 1.6 litre model overheated.

Mr. Hlope told Moneyweb his vehicle had been with Numbi Ford in
White River since November for repairs following overheating due
to a flywheel problem.  He was using a courtesy vehicle.  When the
recall was announced in January, he requested the service centre
to do those repairs as well before returning his vehicle.

Part of this would have been to replace the vehicle's water
bottle, but since his had been replaced earlier, he accepted to
the technician's contention that it did not need replacement.

About two weeks ago he got the vehicle back, but a day or two
later saw something like a mudguard loose under the engine.  When
he took it in on Feb. 6 to have it fixed, the technician noticed
that levels in the water bottle dropped substantially.

They agreed that he would take the vehicle while the service
centre waited for a new water bottle to be delivered.  He had an
appointment to have it fitted on February 15.

On February 9 he was driving to lunch, when the vehicle suddenly
lost power and stopped, with smoke emerging from the engine.

He called the fire brigade that came and opened the engine, only
to find that it was actually steam from the overheating and there
was no fire.

Mr. Hlope says his car's engine got damaged.  He feels there is
something really wrong with the vehicle and has decided to take it
back to Ford.  He is currently waiting for an offer, including the
top-up that Ford South Africa is offering affected Kuga owners.


GALENA BIOPHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 13
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Galena Biopharma, Inc. securities (GALE) from August
11, 2014 through January 31, 2017, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Galena
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Galena class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1054.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Galena's sales of Abstral were based on unsustainable
sales and marketing practices; (2) such sales and marketing
practices could subject Galena to a criminal investigation; and
(3) as a result, Defendants' statements about Galena's business,
operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.  When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
April 14, 2017.  If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1054.htmlor to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-
3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE: Del. Ch. Dismisses "Green" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of Delaware dismissed the amended verified
class action complaint filed in the case captioned Re: Green, v.
GEICO General Insurance Company, C.A. No. 9431-VCS (Del. Ch.).

The plaintiffs sought an injunction that would "prohibit GEICO
from employing the Geographic Reduction Rule and Passive Modality
Rule" when adjusting claims for benefits presented under
Delaware's personal injury protection (PIP) statute, and a
mandatory injunction that would "require GEICO to recalculate all
previously paid claims [for PIP benefits] from the period March
10, 2011 to the date an injunction is issued . . . without using
the Geographic Reduction Rule or Passive Modality Rule."

The Court, however, found that the complaint offers no well-pled
facts that would support the notion that a declaration of rights
under the applicable contracts of insurance and/or Delaware's PIP
statute, coupled with an award of damages and statutory penalties,
if appropriate, would not provide an adequate remedy to the
putative class of plaintiffs.  The Court explained that a
declaration that either the insurance policies at issue or the
applicable statute(s) do not permit GEICO to employ the Geographic
Reduction Rule or Passive Modality Rule in its claims processing
would not require an accompanying injunction.

Further, the Court determined that the plaintiffs can resort to
the Superior Court's Civil Rules, particularly Rule 37, to compel
GEICO to produce damages evidence in the event the Superior Court
determines that GEICO either breached its insurance contracts or
violated the PIP statute by applying the Geographic Reduction Rule
or Passive Modality Rule when adjusting claims.

The Court thus held that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction
since "[t]he true nature of this action is contractual; [and]
complete relief is available at law."

A full-text copy of the Court's February 1, 2017 order is
available at https://is.gd/QZrVn3 from Leagle.com.


GENERAL GROWTH: Court Tosses With Prejudice "Pezzoli" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Growth Properties, Inc., said in its Form 8-K/A filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2017, that a
purported class action lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice as to
Plaintiff Paul Pezzoli.

On July 14, 2016, Paul Pezzoli (the "Plaintiff"), a stockholder of
General Growth Properties, Inc., a Delaware corporation, filed a
putative class action complaint (the "Action") in the Delaware
Court of Chancery (the "Court") against the Company's Board of
Directors, alleging that provisions in the Company's Amended and
Restated Certificate of Incorporation and Amended and Restated
Bylaws that allowed the removal of directors "only for cause"
violated Section 141(k) of the Delaware General Corporation Law
and gave rise to claims for breach of fiduciary duty.

Following the actions taken by its Board on July 20, 2016 that the
Company reported in Form 8-K on July 21, 2016, counsel for
Plaintiff agreed to seek the Court's dismissal of the Action as
moot. Counsel for Plaintiff also sought an award of attorneys'
fees and expenses from the Court. To avoid any risk, distraction
and expense associated with litigating the attorneys' fees and
expense award, the Company agreed to resolve the matter for a
payment to Plaintiff's counsel in the amount of $37,500, which the
Company shall pay directly. This amount will be paid by the
Company and has not been approved by the Court.

On January 2, 2017, the Court entered an order dismissing the
Action with prejudice as to the Plaintiff and without prejudice as
to all other members of the putative class.

General Growth Properties, Inc., is primarily engaged in the
ownership, operation, management, leasing, acquisition,
development and expansion of regional mall and community shopping
centers in the U.S.


GEORGIA: Plaintiff's Payoffs a Third of Another Plan, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Watson at Gainesville Times reports payouts from another
government employee retirement plan in Georgia are nearly triple
what is received by the lead plaintiff in a $75 million class-
action lawsuit in Hall County.

The lawsuit filed in Fulton County Superior Court is challenging a
1998 freeze in retirement pension benefits for Hall government
employees. The lawsuit claims the county "made no additional
employer contributions for plaintiffs to the 'trust fund.'"

When the board resolution was signed in 1998, all accrued benefits
after that were frozen.

The Association County of Commissioners of Georgia is named as a
defendant in the lawsuit.

ACCG declined to provide statistics on pension payouts for member
counties that use its plan, which includes Hall.

"Upon advice from our general counsel, we do not discuss pending
litigation," ACCG communications manager Schuyler Harding wrote in
an email.

Amy Henderson, public information manager for the Georgia
Municipal Association, said the average monthly payout from its
retirement program for government employees was $945.83 in
December 2016.

The payout from GMA is nearly three times the amount plaintiff
Brad Rounds and other Hall employees claim they are expected to
receive if the freeze stays in place.

According to the lawsuit, Rounds' "frozen" pension benefit is $389
per month. Under the original formula, he would receive $2,567
monthly, according to the lawsuit.

The Times filed an open records request asking what the county has
saved since the pension plan change, but county officials said no
such documents existed. No numbers on Hall retirees drawing
retirement benefits were released.

Attorney Michael Kramer -- mk@michaelkramerlaw.com -- said the
class suit includes about 70 current employees and about 30 that
retired after July 1, 2008, many of them first responders. He did
not return a call for comment on February 10.

The attorneys claimed Hall County "discriminated unlawfully" by
exempting retirees from the freeze who left between 1998 and June
30, 2008.

Jimmy Echols, who served on the Hall County Board of Commissioners
at the time of the board resolution, said his recollection of the
events and the freeze are "fuzzy."

"There was a pretty large delegation -- I'd say eight or 10 at
least -- of county employees from several different areas of the
county government who came to us and thanked us for taking the
action that we took," Echols said.

Echols said there was a study group working on the issue, and the
commission's actions were due in part to their recommendations.

"I think they saw it at that time as being beneficial to them," he
said. "Of course, there was a lot of difference in that time.
Government was growing by leaps and bounds."

According to the board resolution signed on July 1, 1998, the Hall
County Defined Benefit Plan was to be frozen.

"The return on those investments in the pension plans was not what
it looked like it would be in 1998," Echols said.

Another commissioner at the time, Al Gainey, did not return a call
for comment.


GLOBAL FITNESS: Blackman Seeks Review of Settlement Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Theodore H. Frank, writing for The Washington Times, reports that
Trump administration spokeswoman Kellyanne Conway recently
defended false statements about inauguration crowd size as
"alternative facts," provoking a great kerfuffle.  But in the
class-action world, trial lawyers have been making millions on
alternative facts for decades.  And, astonishingly, courts
disagree over whether it's permissible for lawyers to use
alternative facts to cheat their consumer clients.

But this month, the Supreme Court has a chance to protect
consumers from alternative facts, as it considers a casefull of
fake facts and an unfair lawyer windfall.  It's a challenge to
this scheme by wunderkind law professor Josh Blackman, who
stumbled into class membership and the way class-action lawyers
cheat consumers when he joined a Kentucky gym during his judicial
clerkship.

The too-common scam goes like this.  Trial lawyers bring a class
action against a business, alleging unfair charges or false
advertising and seeking to recover a few dollars each for
thousands or millions of its customers.  It's okay if the case is
weak, because the defendant still finds it cheaper to settle the
lawsuit for a small percentage of the total losses alleged than to
fight on.

Duracell, for example, is willing to settle a suit over battery
advertising for $6 million.  But the trial lawyers won't get rich
if most of that money actually goes to consumers.  Solution: the
parties structure a settlement to make class members jump through
hoops to get $6 refunds, like publishing a notice in the back of a
newspaper about the need to mail in a claim form instead of
obtaining customer addresses from retailer databases and mailing
them checks. This ensures that over 99 percent of the class gets
nothing, Duracell pays out only $344,000 to consumers, and the
lawyers nab $5.7 million for themselves.

But class-action settlements can only happen with judicial
approval.  So why would a judge ever agree to such a rip-off?
Alternative facts to the rescue.  Over eight million class members
in the Duracell case could have, hypothetically, asked for $6
refunds.  Thus, the trial lawyers insist, it's really a $50
million settlement, which makes a $5.7 million fee seem
reasonable.  Press accounts then parrot the $50 million figure,
staving off much public criticism.

But if courts accede to this swindle without looking out for the
consumer, and trial lawyers get paid even when their clients
don't, lawyers have zero incentive to fight for a settlement that
actually compensates people who allegedly suffered harm.  In fact,
lawyers have the opposite incentive, because getting money to
consumers leaves less for fees.

Alternative-facts settlements might be laughable if they weren't
depressing. In one ongoing case, the lawyers are set to get $9
million compared to $225,000 for the class.  The court justified
this gross disparity based on the millions of $20 coupons given to
class members for future flower deliveries.  Never mind that the
coupons expire in a year.  And are not good for the weeks before
Christmas.  Or Mother's Day.  Or Valentine's Day.

In the 2014 case Pearson v. NBTY, Judge Richard Posner of the
Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, spoke out against this sort
of class-action fiction.  A settlement over nutritional
supplements that paid $865,000 to twelve million class members was
worth $865,000 -- not the $20 million claimed by class lawyers.
That made the lawyers' request for $4.5 million in fees downright
"selfish," said Judge Posner.

And, wouldn't you know it, telling trial lawyers they only get
paid when their clients do can have the uncanny effect of
refocusing their priorities.  After the case was sent back to the
lower court to reconsider, a new settlement paid the class over $3
million more than before, with the attorneys getting more
proportionate fees.

But the battle has now moved to the Supreme Court, and much is at
stake for the future of class action fairness.

In Blackman v. Gascho, a 2-1 decision of the Sixth Circuit Court
of Appeals rejected Judge Posner's logical and fair reasoning,
instead upholding a district court decision that bought the
lawyers' alternative facts -- that a settlement over gym
membership fees paying the class $1.6 million somehow amounted to
an $8.5 million settlement -- and awarded a fee 150 percent of
what the consumers actually got.

That's why 17 state attorneys general joined Blackman's petition
to the Supreme Court seeking review of this decision, sharing our
concern for the countless Americans bilked by class-action
lawyers.

Uniformity from our courts is important.  Otherwise, trial lawyers
can dodge the courts that balk at alternative facts and instead
file settlements in courts willing to turn a blind eye to millions
being siphoned from consumers to wealthy lawyers.  The Supreme
Court can right this wrong and ensure some much-needed consumer
protections in America's class-action system.


GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Awaits OK of Settlement in Merger-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Global Payments Inc. awaits approval of a settlement resolving a
merger-related class action lawsuit, according to the Company's
January 9, 2017, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended November 30, 2016.

On December 15, 2015, the Company entered into a merger agreement
with Heartland Payment Systems, Inc., pursuant to which the
Company merged with Heartland in a cash-and-stock transaction that
the Company completed on April 22, 2016 for total purchase
consideration of $3.9 billion.

Heartland, Heartland's board of directors, Global Payments, Data
Merger Sub One, Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of Global
Payments, the "Data Merger Sub One") and Data Merger Sub Two, LLC
(a wholly owned subsidiary of Global Payments, the "Data Merger
Sub Two") were named as defendants in a putative class action
lawsuit challenging the proposed merger with Heartland. The suit
was filed on January 8, 2016 in the New Jersey Superior Court,
Mercer County, Civil Division, and is captioned Kevin Merchant v.
Heartland Payment Systems, et al, L-45-16. The complaint alleges,
among other things, that the directors of Heartland breached their
fiduciary duties to Heartland stockholders by agreeing to sell
Heartland for inadequate consideration, agreeing to improper deal
protection terms in the merger agreement, failing to properly
value Heartland, and filing a materially incomplete registration
statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In
addition, the complaint alleges that Heartland, Global Payments,
Merger Sub One, and Merger Sub Two aided and abetted these
purported breaches of fiduciary duty.

On April 12, 2016, solely to avoid the costs, disruption and
distraction of further litigation, and without admitting the
validity of any allegations made by the plaintiff, Heartland and
Global Payments reached an agreement to settle the suit and
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to document the terms
and conditions for settlement of the suit.  The proposed
settlement is subject to court approval and a motion for such
approval is now pending with the court.

If the proposed settlement is approved by the court, it will
release all claims that were or could have been brought
challenging any aspect of the merger with Heartland or the merger
agreement related thereto and any disclosure made in connection
therewith, under terms that will be disclosed to stockholders
before final approval of the proposed settlement. The settlement,
if approved, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on
the Company's financial position, liquidity, results of operations
or cash flows.

Global Payments Inc. was incorporated in Georgia in 2000 and spun-
off from its former parent company in 2001.  The Company is a
worldwide provider of payment technology services delivering
innovative solutions to its customers globally.  The Company's
technologies, partnerships and employee expertise enable it to
provide a broad range of services that allow its customers to
accept various payment types.  The Company distributes its
services across a variety of channels to merchants and partners in
30 countries throughout North America, Europe, the Asia-Pacific
region and in Brazil and operate in three reportable segments:
North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific.


GUESTLOGIX: Court Approves Amendments to Statement of Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------
Morganti Legal on Feb. 13 disclosed that the Superior Court of
Ontario has approved amendments to the Statement of Claim in the
putative class action on behalf of shareholders of Guestlogix Inc.
(TSX: "GXI") (Tacniere v. Guestlogix Inc. et al. (CV-16-545118-
00CP)) that have the effect of shortening the Class Period for
claims brought pursuant to the Ontario Securities Act. The new
Class Period is from and including June 8, 2015, to and including
November 12, 2015.

Morganti Legal further announces that the claim against National
Bank Financial, Inc. has been dismissed.  As such, National Bank
Financial, Inc. is no longer a defendant in the class proceeding.

If you purchased securities of Guestlogix Inc. during the period
of March 24, 2014 to, and including, June 7, 2015, there is no
longer a class proceeding protecting your rights under the Ontario
Securities Act.

Investors who purchased securities of Guestlogix Inc. on or after
March 24, 2014, but before June 8, 2015, and who held some or all
of those securities at the close of trading on November 12, 2015,
continue to have their rights protected under this putative class
action pursuant to the common law.

For further information, please contact Andrew Morganti at (647)
344-1900 or amorganti@morgantilegal.com.

Morganti Legal is comprised of experienced securities lawyers that
investigate, litigate and resolve economic and financial disputes.
You may learn more about Morganti Legal at www.morgantilegal.com.

This press release is being issued pursuant to a court order.


HEALTHPORT TECH: 4th Cir. Sends "Gwozdz" Suit to State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, III of the Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment in a class
action lawsuit against HealthPort Technologies, LLC and remanded
the action to the district court with instructions to return the
case to state court.

The appellate case is captioned, LAWRENCE GWOZDZ, Individually and
on behalf of Donna Gwozdz and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC., Defendant-
Appellee, Case No. 15-2586 (4th Cir.).

Lawrence Gwozdz challenges HealthPort's collection of $23 in sales
tax on the sale of medical records. Under the Tax Injunction Act
(TIA), federal courts may not "enjoin, suspend or restrain the
assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a
plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of
such State." Gwozdz requested his wife's medical records from two
Maryland hospitals, which forwarded his inquiries to their
contractor, HealthPort Technologies, LLC. Before releasing the
documents, HealthPort sent Gwozdz two itemized invoices demanding
that he pay a total of $23 in sales tax, along with other fees.
Gwozdz protested, insisting that Maryland exempted the sale of
medical records from its general sales tax and that the $23 charge
was therefore unlawful. HealthPort defended the tax and refused to
send the records unless Gwozdz pre-paid in full. Despite his
misgivings, he did so.

Gwozdz filed a class action complaint against HealthPort in
Maryland state court seeking damages and injunctive relief.
HealthPort removed the case under the Class Action Fairness Act.
Instead of requesting a refund, the typical relief sought for an
improperly paid tax, the operative complaint asserts several
statutory consumer protection claims and a hodgepodge of common
law claims including fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and
unjust enrichment.

HealthPort moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). It
argued that Maryland created an exclusive administrative procedure
for settling tax disputes which the court granted concluding that
"the exclusive remedy for the recovery of taxes on the sale of
medical records that are alleged to have been improper is to seek
a refund from the comptroller under the procedures established by
Maryland law."

On appeal, Gwozdz argues that (1) he is not a taxpayer disputing
an improper tax but a consumer challenging an unlawful billing
practice; and (2) the administrative refund scheme does not
preclude common law and statutory causes of action that are
external to the Tax Code, such as his claims against HealthPort
for fraud and consumer protection violations.

In the Decision dated January 24, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/1CJ2GA from Leagle.com, Judge Wilkinson held that
the TIA and the related principle of federal-state comity operate
to deprive the Court of jurisdiction because under TIA, federal
courts may not "enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy
or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and
efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State."

Lawrence Gwozdz is represented by:

      Jonathan Barry Nace, Esq.
      ANTONOPLOS & ASSOCIATES
      1725 Desales St NW Suite 600,
      Washington, DC 20036
      Tel: (202)803-5676

Healthport Technologies, LLC is represented by Alec Winfield Farr,
Esq. -- awfarr@bryancave.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP


HENRY INDUSTRIES: Counterclaims in "Hose" Survives Dismissal Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John A. Ross denied the motion filed by James Hose to
dismiss and/or strike Henry Industries, Inc.'s counterclaims in
the case captioned JAMES HOSE, Plaintiff, v. HENRY INDUSTRIES,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:15-cv-01913-JAR (E.D. Mo.).

In September 2013, Hose filed a collective action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas, alleging that Henry
Industries had misclassified him and other similarly-situated
employees as independent contractors, and failed to pay them
overtime compensation as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).  In November 27, 2013, Hose filed a class action, on
behalf of himself and other similarly-situated employees, in the
Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis, seeking compensation for
unpaid overtime wages under the Missouri Minimum Wage Maximum Hour
Law.

Hose then filed an action in the District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, alleging that Henry Industries terminated
his employment on December 27, 2013, because he filed the FLSA
collective action and the state class action.  According to Hose,
Henry Industries violated the FLSA's anti-retaliation provision
and Missouri public policy by terminating him.

Henry Industries filed an answer, raising various affirmative
defenses and asserting two counterclaims:

     1) a declaratory judgment counterclaim, seeking declaratory
        judgment that Hose was an independent contractor whose
        scope of work was not covered by the FLSA; and

     2) an indemnification counterclaim, alleging that Hose
        breached a contract in which he agreed that his
        relationship with Henry Industries would be as an
        independent contractor, not as an employee, and that he
        would indemnify Henry Industries in any suit brought by
        him under, inter alia, minimum wage or overtime laws,
        based on a theory that Henry Industries was his employer.

Hose moved to dismiss and to strike Henry Industries'
counterclaims.

Hose argued that the declaratory judgment counterclaim should be
dismissed because it is redundant to one of Henry Industries'
affirmative defenses, i.e., that Hose was not an employee under
the FLSA.  Hose also argued that the declaratory judgment
counterclaim should be dismissed because it is not yet ripe for
judicial review, as it will necessitate further factual
development relating to the extent Henry Industries exercised
control and influence over Hose's work.

In addition, Hose argued that the Court lacks supplemental
jurisdiction over the indemnification counterclaim because it is
permissive and is insufficiently related to Hose's retaliatory-
discharge claim.  Hose further argued that the indemnification
counterclaim should be dismissed for failure to state a claim
because it is preempted by the FLSA and because the contract is
invalid, unconscionable, and unenforceable.

Judge Ross found that the indemnification counterclaim seeks
reimbursement for a loss that falls squarely within the contract's
indemnification clause, i.e. attorney's fees that Henry Industries
has incurred as a result of an alleged breach of the contract by
Hose.  As such, the judge held that Henry Industries need not
establish that it suffered a liability or that a judgment has been
entered against it before its counterclaim is ripe for judicial
review.  The judge therefore denied Hose's motion to dismiss Henry
Industries' counterclaims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Judge Ross also found that Hose has not identified any unfair
issues in the formation of the contract that support his
allegation of procedural unconscionability.  The judge thus
concluded that Henry Industries' counterclaim is not subject to
dismissal based on unconscionability of the contract it seeks to
enforce.

Judge Ross agreed with Hose that counterclaims brought by
employers seeking indemnity from their employees for liabilities
under the FLSA are generally preempted by the FLSA and its broad
remedial scheme.  However, Judge Ross found that it is not yet
clear whether Henry Industries' indemnification counterclaim is
preempted by the FLSA because there remains a factual dispute as
to whether Hose was an independent contractor or an employee of
Henry Industries.  The judge thus denied Hose's motion to dismiss
Henry Industries' indemnification counterclaim on preemption
grounds, as such a determination would be still be premature.

Judge Ross also found that the declaratory judgment counterclaim
is not redundant because it is not yet clear that judgment in
Henry Industries' favor on Hose's retaliation claim will
necessarily moot Henry Industries' declaratory judgment
counterclaim.  Further, Henry Industries' declaratory judgment
counterclaim additionally seeks an award of attorney's fees, a
claim for relief that is beyond the scope of both Hose's FLSA
retaliation claim set forth in his complaint and the affirmative
defenses Henry Industries raised in its answer.  Therefore, the
judge denied Hose's motion to the extent it seeks dismissal of
Henry Industries' declaratory judgment counterclaim based on
duplicity or redundancy.

A full-text copy of Judge Ross' January 27, 2017 memorandum and
order is available at https://is.gd/usiwWI from Leagle.com.

James Hose, Plaintiff, represented by Jase C. Carter, DASHTAKI LAW
FIRM, LLC, Kevin J. Dolley -- kevin@dolleylaw.com -- LAW OFFICES
OF KEVIN J. DOLLEY, LLC & Cyrus C. Dashtaki, DASHTAKI LAW FIRM.
LLC.

Henry Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Johnny S. Wang -
- johnny.wang@stinson.com -- STINSON AND LEONARD LLP, Molly Walsh
Keppler -- molly.keppler@stinson.com -- STINSON AND LEONARD LLP &
Marc D. Goldstein -- marc.goldstein@stinson.com -- STINSON AND
LEONARD LLP.


HERMANA MIRABAL: "Flores" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Maximino Hernandez Flores, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Hermana Mirabal Inc. d/b/a Cherry Valley
Supermarket and Martin A. Espinal, Case No. 1:17-cv-00719
(S.D.N.Y., January 30, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Maximino Hernandez Flores was employed as a delivery worker by the
Defendants.

The Defendants own and operate a grocery store located at 1968 2nd
Ave, New York, NY 10029.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com


HOME CAPITAL: Litigation Threat More Worrisome Than OSC Penalties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Armina Ligaya, writing for Financial Post, reports that
Home Capital Group Inc. will likely be able to manage any
financial sanctions stemming from an enforcement notice it
received from Canada's largest securities regulator, but the
threat of a class-action lawsuit is "potentially more meaningful,"
a National Bank analyst says.

The Ontario Securities Commission served the mortgage lender an
enforcement notice indicating that OSC staff had reached the
"preliminary conclusion" that the company "failed to meet its
continuous disclosure obligations" in 2014 and 2015, Home Capital
said on Feb. 10.

This notice was in connection with Home Capital's disclosure in
2015 that it discovered that some information on loan applications
had been falsified, and the subsequent remedial steps it took --
such as the suspension of brokers and brokerages.

Home Capital said in the statement on Feb. 10 that it believes it
had satisfied the applicable requirements, and will respond to the
OSC before the regulator decides whether to push forward with
proceedings.

Not all enforcement notices reach that level and until formal
public proceedings begin, "we can only speculate as to potential
financial impacts and/or other outcomes," said National Bank
analyst Jaeme Gloyn in a note on Feb. 12.

But the financial impact of any sanctions under the OSC framework
are "likely manageable." For example, sanctions could include a
penalty of no more than $1-million for each respondent's failure
to comply, the note to clients said.

"Based on enforcement activity reported by the OSC in 2014 and
2015, potential financial sanctions appear manageable, in our
view," Gloyn said.

Total financial sanctions during that period amounted to an
average of $800,000, the analyst added, though it noted Ernst &
Young LLP reached an $8-million settlement over its role as
external auditor for Sino-Forest Corp. in 2014.

More significantly, however, disclosure failures have led to
class-action lawsuits in the past, the note said.  Gloyn pointed
to July 2009, when Manulife Financial Corp. was named as a
defendant in a $1-billion class-action lawsuit in connection to
its disclosure obligations regarding its exposure to equity
markets -- which came one month after the company received an OSC
enforcement notice.  On Jan. 31, 2017, Manulife settled the class
action lawsuit for $69-million.

"In our view, this suggests that the severity of the situation
could increase materially in the event a class-action lawsuit
against HCG is brought forth," Gloyn wrote.

Still, potential financial sanctions from the OSC or any related
litigation are "secondary to the near-to-medium term outlook for
the company."

Bigger looming issues include the potential impact of regulatory
changes (enacted and proposed) on Home Capital and "persistent
earnings headwinds."

"The resulting overhang from OSC proceedings only serves to
reinforce our view that the market will ascribe a higher risk
premium to HCG in the near term," said Gloyn, reiterating its
rating of underperform.


HOME CAPITAL: Siskinds LLP Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Siskinds on Feb. 13 disclosed that it has filed a proposed class
action on behalf of investors in Home Capital Group (HCG.TO).  The
action names Home Capital Group and certain of its current and
former officers as defendants.

The action alleges that Home Capital Group failed to make required
disclosures regarding the termination of its relationships with
certain mortgage brokers and brokerages in late 2014 and early
2015.

The action seeks to represent persons who acquired the securities
of Home Capital Group between November 5, 2014 and July 10, 2015
(the "Class Period").

If you acquired Home Capital Group securities during the Class
Period, please contact Siskinds LLP by phone at (800) 461-6166
ext. 2380 or by email at nicole.young@siskinds.com.

                      About Siskinds LLP

Siskinds LLP is a full-service law firm headquartered in London
with an office in Toronto, and affiliate offices in Montreal and
Quebec City.  Siskinds is Canada's leading class action law firm.
It was also the first law firm to secure certification of a class
proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and has
prosecuted and resolved more securities class actions than any
other Canadian law firm.  Siskinds is or has been lead or co-lead
counsel in many of Canada's largest securities class actions,
including Sino-Forest, Manulife, SNC-Lavalin, and Valeant
Pharmaceuticals.


INDONESIA: Appeal in Case Over Bukit Duri Evictions Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Edith Koesoemawiria, writing for Mongabay, reports that six weeks
after the last of the Bukit Duri evictees moved into their new
dwellings here in the Indonesian capital, the atmosphere was
friendly but painful.  Some tenants told jokes at the food stall
in the parking lot.  The cook, also a former Bukit Duri resident,
had initially gone to her hometown of Bogor.  But after a neighbor
told her about the new quarters and a possible income, she
returned.  "I lived in Bukit Duri for more than two decades
-- when I returned to Bogor there was really no one I knew
anymore," she said.  "I was alone, moping without anyone to talk
to.  Here I am with friends, I have a life."

Twenty of the evicted families -- 96 men, women and children --
now live in a two-storey, 800-square-meter building in South
Jakarta's Kampung Melayu neighborhood, about a kilometer from
where their houses in Bukit Duri once stood.  The riverside slum
was mowed to the ground last October in the name of flood
prevention.  The Jakarta administration sent bulldozers, guarded
by police and soldiers, to remove hundreds of families from the
area.

Bukit Duri lay on the banks of the Ciliwung River, which the
government is trying to "normalize."  The waterway crosses the
city and has been made filthy by industrial sewage, garbage dumped
by urban residents and a failure of city maintenance.  Only
recently, and especially since incumbent Jakarta Governor Basuki
Tjahaja "Ahok" Purnama took office, have rivers and many parts of
the capital region been cleaned, in line with his pledge to end
corruption and solve the city's awful traffic and floods. The
Ciliwung is prone to overflow, and the slum neighborhoods lining
its edges suffer regular floods. Ahok maintains it is
irresponsible to let them live that way.

Bukit Duri residents resisted the eviction.  Some did so
militantly, others through legal channels.  Bukit Duri has existed
since 1920.  Many families have lived there for generations.

Heri, a 57-year-old evictee, was born in Bukit Duri.  His
grandfather moved there during the Dutch colonial era.  He
welcomed last month's court verdict declaring the evictions
illegal.  The panel of judges at the Jakarta State Administrative
Court had ordered the city to revoke the eviction notice.  The
Ahok administration has appealed the ruling.  Like others, Heri is
anxious the ruling will be overturned.

Heri has placed his faith in a class-action suit filed by evictees
at the Central Jakarta District Court.  Each family in the class
action claims to have evidence of land ownership in the emptied
area.  Their proof ranges from land certificates to letters of
land appointments, purchase agreements, building-use permits and
ownership statements.  Heri comes to each hearing. Assisted by
Bukit Duri resident lawyer Vera Soemarwi, the landowners are
demanding full compensation and damages.  "Come what may," Heri
said, "we will appeal unjust rulings and claim justice."

The grievance rests in large part on how the city carried out the
eviction.  The government expedited the process by using a
regulation against disruption of public order.  Insinuation flew
in the media that residents of the Bukit Duri slums were illegal
in the capital. Exacerbating the perceived injustice, the governor
stressed that it was a case of relocation instead of eviction.

In fact, the city administration had prepared several low-budget,
modern-looking apartments in other parts of Jakarta, and offered
Bukit Duri residents three months of free lodging.  To qualify,
one had to show proof of a monthly salary and a letter from one's
employer, open an account in the city's Bank DKI and deposit the
equivalent of three months rent.  Many residents scrape by with
jobs in the informal economy and could not fulfill the
requirements.

Heri said the cost of living in an apartment is twice that of the
private rooms in which they now live.  Besides the basic rent of
350,000 rupiah ($26) there are costs -- water, electricity,
maintenance and security -- which altogether amount to a minimum
of 800,000 rupiah monthly.  The Kampung Melayu homes cost 430,000
rupiah per family.

On top of that, those getting apartments had to sign an agreement
forfeiting any prospect of compensation.  For Heri and those in
the class action, this was unacceptable.  While some residents
were readily relocated, accepting the deal and expressing no
desire to return to Bukit Duri, others who signed on have
regretted the choice.  Other high-rises made available for
previous evictions in 2003-4 have deteriorated into stapled slums.

Another thorn in the flesh is the feeling of being lied to and
ignored.  As early as 2003, architect Marcello Sidharta, then a
student at Jakarta's Tarumanagara University, made a maquette -- a
preliminary sketch -- of river-friendly living quarters for his
studies.  Sandyawan Sumardi, director of Ciliwung Merdeka, an NGO
working more than 20 years in the area, presented it to city
officials in the hope of gaining support for its realization.
There was no follow up.

More recently, in 2012, Sumardi together with the Bukit Duri
community and assisted by academics and practitioners in Jakarta's
Urban Village Forum presented environment and community-sensitive
housing designs to President Joko Widodo, who was then Jakarta's
governor, with Ahok as his deputy.  The designs were based on
local traditions, besides community resilience and knowledge of
living with rivers.  They were favored and approved of by both
men. But the city never did anything with the plans.

In a fast-growing metropolis like Jakarta, eviction is a recurring
issue. Documentation of problems and effects of previous evictions
can be easily found.  A 2004 Human Rights Watch report on
evictions in Teluk Gong, North Jakarta, was delivered -- with
reports from other countries -- to the UN Human Settlements
Programme (UN Habitat), which accordingly adjusted its urban
planning guidelines.

In line with the UN's 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, UN
Habitat calls for strong and effective leadership, land-use
planning, jurisdictional coordination, inclusive citizen
participation in infrastructure design, and efficient financing to
help foster urban responses to climate change.  Its 2016 World
Cities Report insists on participation and collaboration,
inclusivity, and recognition of the rights of minorities and
vulnerable groups.

As Bukit Duri evictees and residents move forward with community-
based saving plans for land ownership, Sumardi is weary of
questions asking why these progressive designs were not self-
implemented earlier.  "Where would we get the money to do that? We
are just a small and relatively poor community.  We have
knowledge, talent and have the will to develop, but we need
government support and facilitation."

Jakarta faces gubernatorial elections on Feb. 8.  Candidates have
turned the evictions into a politicum.  The two candidates running
against Ahok promise no more evictions, while the incumbent
insists they can't be avoided as the city grows.  The latter may
be true.  For many in Jakarta, Ahok is heroic in his drive for
change.  Improvement in administrative services and the reduction
of floods have been felt by all.  He has proven some learning
ability on other sensitive issues, but will he learn to make
leeway for inclusive citizen participation? Or will he keep using
heavyhanded (eviction) methods? This remains to be seen. The
governor's chair is up for grabs.


INTELIQUENT INC: Files More Information on Onvoy Merger
-------------------------------------------------------
Inteliquent, Inc., on January 6, 2017, filed a Form 8-K with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, in connection with a
consolidated litigation concerning, among other things, the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated November 2, 2016, by and among
Inteliquent, Inc., Onvoy Igloo Merger Sub, Inc., and Onvoy, LLC.

Parent and Merger Sub are affiliates of the private equity
investment firm GTCR, LLC ("GTCR"). Pursuant to the Merger
Agreement, Merger Sub will be merged with and into the Company
(the "merger") with the Company surviving the merger as a wholly-
owned subsidiary of the Parent.

As disclosed in the definitive proxy statement filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") by the Company on
December 14, 2016 (the "Definitive Proxy Statement"), a putative
class action lawsuit challenging the proposed merger was filed on
behalf of Company stockholders in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois. The action is captioned Lon
v. Inteliquent, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-11244 (N.D. Ill.).
Subsequent to the filing of the Definitive Proxy Statement, two
additional putative class action lawsuits challenging the proposed
merger were filed on behalf of Company stockholders in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. These
actions are captioned Wiesenfeld v. Inteliquent, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-11392 (N.D. Ill.) and Schwartz v. Inteliquent,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-11494 (N.D. Ill.). These three
actions were consolidated on January 5, 2017.

The plaintiffs in the consolidated action allege that the
Company's preliminary proxy statement filed with the SEC on
December 2, 2016 and the Definitive Proxy Statement omitted
material information regarding the merger, rendering them false
and misleading. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that
the Definitive Proxy Statement omits certain information relating
to communications concerning post-merger employment opportunities
for the Company's directors and officers, the Company's financial
projections, the financial analyses performed by the Company's
financial advisor and the results of the Company's "go-shop"
process.

The defendants named in the consolidated action deny all liability
with respect to the facts and claims alleged in the consolidated
action and specifically deny that any further disclosure is
required to supplement the Definitive Proxy Statement under any
applicable rule, statute, regulation or law. Nonetheless, the
Company has determined to supplement the Definitive Proxy
Statement with the disclosures set forth in the filing. In making
these supplemental disclosures, the Company and its Board of
Directors do not in any way admit the factual or legal allegations
in the consolidated action and further reserve all of their rights
and defenses with respect thereto.

The Company says the supplemental disclosures will not affect the
merger consideration to be paid to stockholders of the Company in
connection with the proposed merger or the timing of the special
meeting of stockholders.

INTELIQUENT, INC. -- http://www.inteliquent.com/-- is a provider
of VoIP services and supports VoIP APIs.


J.P. MORGAN: Faces New Suit Over Deceptive Fees on D.C. Jurors
--------------------------------------------------------------
D.C. law firm, Tycko & Zavareei LLP, filed a class action lawsuit
against JPMorgan Chase alleging the bank charges D.C. jurors
deceptive and unconscionable fees. The case was filed in U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia and is captioned Scott
v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 17-cv-249.

D.C. law entitles all jurors to a $4 daily travel stipend, and, if
selected to serve on a jury, a $30 daily attendance fee. Rather
than receive their payment by check or cash, the lawsuit alleges
D.C. jurors are forced to receive their payment on JPMorgan Chase
debit cards, in violation of federal law. The lawsuit also alleges
violations of state law, claiming that the debit cards are loaded
with hidden inactivity and other fees for using -- or not using --
the cards.

The Plaintiff, William Mark Scott, brought suit on behalf of all
individuals who answered calls to jury duty and were paid with
JPMorgan Chase debit cards.

Anna Haac -- ahaac@tzlegal.com -- of Tycko and Zavareei LLP, an
attorney representing Mr. Scott, commented, "Jury duty is integral
to our American democracy. As alleged, it appears that Chase
intentionally designed its juror debit card system so that the
bank ends up with the payments instead of jurors, who are entitled
to them by statute."

Because many ATMs do not dispense money in dollar increments or
amounts less than $20, the lawsuit alleges that jurors with odd
dollar increments-including all jurors who receive only the $4
travel allowance -- are unable to obtain the full amount of their
jury payments. In this way, the suit claims Chase practically
ensures a "rump" balance will be left on each card -- and will
revert back to Chase.

"JPMorgan Chase should not be profiting off of individuals
fulfilling their civic duty," said Sophia Goren, another attorney
representing Mr. Scott in the lawsuit.

The Complaint includes claims against JPMorgan Chase for unjust
enrichment, conversion, violation of state consumer protection
statutes, and violation of the federal Electronic Fund Transfer
Act.


KAISER FOUNDATION: "Estrada" Suit Stays in Federal Dist. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit affirmed the
district court's order denying the plaintiffs' motion to remand
the case captioned DANIELLE ESTRADA; ROBERT, HERNANDEZ; ARMANDO
SANCHEZ; STEVEN SPERLING; MARCINELLA CALL; SHIRLEY NELSON,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS; THE
PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC.; KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN,
INC.; SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, Defendants-
Appellees, No. 15-15133 (9th Cir.).

The plaintiffs filed a class action in California state court
against Kaiser, alleging violations of California Labor Code
sections 222 and 226.  The plaintiff's theory is that the LMP
Trust Provision in their collective bargaining agreements
constitutes an unlawful deduction under California Labor Code
section 222, and that the $0.09-per-hour contribution was not
listed on the plaintiffs' wage statements, in violation of
California Labor Code section 226.  The plaintiffs further alleged
that this practice constituted a violation of the California
Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and California Business &
Professions Code.

After Kaiser removed the case to federal court, the district court
denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand and concluded that Section
301 of the Labor Management Relations Act preempted the
plaintiffs' state law claims.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.
The appellate court, finding that resolving the plaintiffs' claims
as alleged would require a court to interpret the CBA, explained
that Section 301 "preempts the use of state contract law in
[collective bargaining agreement ("CBA")] interpretation and
enforcement."

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's February 1, 2017
memorandum is available at https://is.gd/hTldTD from Leagle.com.


KANE'S FURNITURE: Settles Class Action Over Lifetime Warranties
---------------------------------------------------------------
William R. Levesque, writing for Tampa Bay Times, reports that a
preliminary settlement has been reached in a class-action lawsuit
filed against Kane's Furniture that accused the retailer of
failing to honor lifetime warranties for defective "bonded
leather" furniture that peeled, flaked and deteriorated.

Notices to about 15,000 customers who purchased the furniture were
put in the mail starting Feb. 10 providing details and asking them
to submit claims by April 11 for full or partial refunds or store
credits, according to court records and plaintiff's attorney Dan
Clark.

Kane's admits no wrongdoing in the settlement.  It has blamed the
Mississippi manufacturer that sold the furniture to Kane's for
defects and the inconvenience caused to customers.  In fact,
Kane's filed suit against that manufacturer in a case that was
later settled.

"We're glad we are finally going to be able settle this for the
sake of our customers," said Lisa Brock, a Kane's spokeswoman.
"Obviously, had we known this product was inferior or defective,
we would never have purchased it.  Any settlement helps us put a
close to this and helps our customers move forward.  It's
regrettable that our customers were put through this."

Anyone who complained to Kane's about problems with the furniture
within a year of purchase is eligible for a 100 percent refund of
the purchase price or a store credit, documents show.  Anyone who
complained after a year -- but no later than two years -- is
eligible for a 50 percent refund or a credit valued at 100 percent
of the purchase price.

Additionally, Kane's has agreed to pay up to $2.5 million to those
customers who did not complain within two years and others who
never complained, ranging from 5 percent to 100 percent of the
purchase price, depending on when the furniture was purchased, the
claims notice says.  That will be paid out in the form of a 60
percent store credit and a 40 percent cash payout.

Any payment made to Kane's for furniture repair counts toward the
refund or credit, the settlement says.  Customers who have already
received an exchange, credit or refund are not eligible for
additional payments or credits.

Final approval of the settlement could occur at a hearing in
Hillsborough Circuit Court on May 1.

The settlement involves furniture sold from July 27, 2010, through
Dec. 5, 2016.  At issue was furniture manufactured by Southern
Motion Inc. using bonded leather, a synthetic, processed
leatherlike substance that contains less than 17 percent actual
leather.

Plaintiffs said Kane's resisted honoring lifetime warranties,
noting normal wear and tear was not covered.  Customers were
notified of the fine print in a brochure all received, the company
has said.

Kane's, which was founded with a single store in St. Petersburg in
1948, is widely known around Tampa Bay.  Today it has 18 stores
along the west coast of Florida and Orlando, and is based in
Pinellas Park. Eight of those stores are in Tampa Bay.

Doug Mincer, 60, who lives in Palm Bay on Florida's east coast and
is one of two named plaintiffs in the case, bought a loveseat and
a sofa from Kane's in 2012 that he said quickly deteriorated.

"I can live with this resolution," Mincer said on Feb. 13.  "As
long as they're going to fix the problem, that's all we can ask
for."


KING CITY, CA: Settlement in "Garcia" Case Wins Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California granted Plaintiffs'
motion for final approval of settlement and the motion for
attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive award in the case captioned,
JESUS GARCIA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF KING CITY, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 14-cv-01126-BLF (N.D. Cal.).

Alleging that Defendants targeted the Hispanic and Latino
residents in a scheme to wrongfully impound and tow their
vehicles, Plaintiffs Maria E. Solis and Blanca Lilia Bonilla sued
the City of King City and other defendants for violations of 42
U.S.C. section 1983, as well as a number of state law claims. They
alleged that the conspirators (the Crew) would then sell the
victims' vehicles and retain the proceeds from the sale,
misappropriate the vehicles for their personal use, or require the
victims to pay exorbitant fees in order to recover their vehicles.

After several rounds of amendments and motion practice, a third
amended complaint was filed on April 24, 2015. The parties
participated in a settlement conferences held before Magistrate
Judge Laurel Beeler on August 25, 2015. The parties were able to
reach a preliminary settlement, which the Court approved.  The
Court conditionally certified the putative class for settlement
purposes only on June 9, 2016. In its order granting Plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary approval, the Court also (1) appointed
Maria E. Solis and Blanca Lilia Bonilla as certified class
representatives; (2) approved the parties' proposed notice; (3)
set the deadline for opt-out and objection deadline 45 days from
Notice Date; (4) set the deadline for filing claims 120 days from
Notice Date and (5) set the date of the fairness hearing on
January 13, 2017.

The parties have agreed that (1) King City shall transfer to the
Escrow Agent $1,225,000.00 as the Settlement Fund; (2) each
Claimant shall receive $3,902.84 from the Settlement Fund; (3) the
two certified class representatives shall be paid an incentive
award in the amount of $2,000 each out of the Settlement Fund; (4)
attorney fees, expenses, and administrative costs shall be paid
from the Settlement Fund; and (5) any portion of the Settlement
Fund that is not distributed will revert to King City.

Plaintiffs move for final approval of the class action settlement,
attorney fees, expenses, and other relief. Class Counsel moves the
Court for $306,250 in attorneys' fees, representing 25 percent of
the settlement amount; reimbursement of $16,000 in expenses and
$7,000 for fees and expenses of Gentle, Turner, Sexton & Harbison,
LLC, as the escrow agent and Settlement Administrator.

In her Order dated January 25, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/MDI5Fu from Leagle.com, Judge Freeman concluded that
the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable and the
award of attorney fees, expenses, and other relief are reasonable.

David Alejandro Gutierrez, et al. are represented by Fernando
Fabela Chavez, Esq. -- ffchavez1530@gmail.com -- LAW OFFICES OF
FERNANDO F. CHAVEZ

City of King City is represented by Richard William Osman, Esq.
-- rosman@bfesf.com -- BERTRAND, FOX, ELLIOT, OSMAN & WENZEL

Bruce Edward Miller is represented by Timothy James Schmal, Esq. -
- tjs@schmallaw.net -- SCHMAL LAW

Bobby Javier Carrillo is represented by Todd Andrew Roberts, Esq.
-- todd.roberts@rmkb.com -- and -- Nicole Suzanne Healy, Esq. --
nicole.healy@rmkb.com -- ROPERS MAJESKI KOHN & BENTLEY

Sr Mario Alonso Mottu, et al. are represented by Grant Anderson
Winter, Esq. -- gwinter@mastagni.com -- and -- Kenneth Eric Bacon,
Esq. -- kbacon@mastagni.com -- MASTAGNI, HOLSTEDT, AMICK, MILLER
AND JOHNSEN


LEBANON SCHOOL: Board Agrees to Settle Suit Over Truancy Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Latimer at Lebanon Daily News reports the Lebanon school
board on February 6 night unanimously agreed to settle a two-year-
old lawsuit involving the district's truancy policy and
accusations that it excessively fined parents of minority students
with multiple unexcused absences.

The agreement does not require the district to admit any
wrongdoing but will hold it accountable for repaying $108,000 in
truancy fines it collected between 2004 and 2009.

The settlement will also require the school to pay the $147,000 in
legal fees incurred by the Philadelphia Public Interest Law
Center, which in January 2011 joined with the National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People in filing a federal lawsuit
on behalf of four parents who claimed fines for their truant
children far exceeded the $300 fine limit.

The lawsuit originated with claims that the district was unfairly
targeting minority families and fining them above the $300
maximum, including one instance in which a family was fined
$9,000.

The lawsuit eventually expanded into a class-action suit involving
more than 170 parents and legal guardians.

After the school board's vote, Bartley said she was pleased to put
the issue behind the district and noted the lawsuit's original
claims that the district was discriminating against minorities
were eventually proven unfounded.

"The first two years we had to do an awful lot of work with the
(U.S. Department of Education's) Office for Civil Rights, and it
showed that there was nothing that was about discrimination," she
said. "There wasn't anything about discrimination. They couldn't
find anything about discrimination, and then it just took a turn
about reducing fines, which we didn't have anything to do
with."The district's attempt to be removed from the lawsuit on the
grounds that the fines are set by the magisterial district judge
was unsuccessful.

The district's decision to settle follows November's pre-trial
ruling in favor of the plaintiffs by Chief Judge Yvette Kane of
the U.S. Middle District Court of Pennsylvania. At that time, Kane
determined the district must repay fines it collected because it
had been "unjustly enriched."

Michael Churchill -- Michael.churchill@pubintlaw.org -- , lead
attorney in the case for the Philadelphia Public Interest Law
Center, said he was pleased with the settlement. There were no
punitive damages, he explained, because that was never the intent
of the lawsuit.

"This settlement allows the parties to avoid the expense of that
trial and for the class members to get everything they had asked
for in the complaint without any further delay," he said.

During the course of the lawsuit, Churchill said, another $325,000
in outstanding fines were rescinded by the local magisterial
district court before being collected.

"Altogether the case resulted in savings of $430,000 in unjust
fines," he said.

Churchill praised the efforts of Letitia Fuentes Keith, president
of the Lebanon Chapter of the NAACP, and local civil-rights
advocate Bill Dumas for their efforts in bringing the practice to
light.

"The community owes Bill Dumas, Letitia Fuentes Keith and the
NAACP its thanks for saving parents from over $430,000 in illegal
fines," Churchill said. "It was their persistence which ended the
harsh punitive truancy fines."

In a news release issued by the Law Center on February 6
afternoon, Churchill said the fine amounts the district are
receiving are down significantly compared to where they were
before the lawsuit. But it continues to have an aggressive truancy
policy and uses truancy fines "as a first resort rather than a
last resort."

Bartley denied Churchill's characterization of the district's
policy.

"We have truancy elimination plans," she said. "We meet with
students. We notify parents in advance. We send out one-day
letters. If there is an absence without an excuse, we
automatically do that. But we don't let it go on forever."

The settlement now moves to federal court for Kane's approval. If
she approves it, as expected, members in the class action will
then have six months to submit claims.

The district will be responsible for finding any members who may
have moved. Those notification and processing fees may push the
district's total settlement cost to about $265,000, Bartley said.

That figure does not include another $30,000 the district paid in
legal expenses to the Bethlehem law firm of King, Spry, Herman,
Freund & Faul.


LG ELECTRONICS: Faces Suit Over V10 "Bootlooping" Defects
---------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Daniels at Law360 reports that LG Electronics USA Inc. is
facing a putative class action filed in California federal court
on February 8 that says it failed to warn consumers about
"bootlooping" defects, or random restarting and freezing, of its
V10 smartphones.

Oscar Herrera seeks to represent a nationwide class of consumers
who bought an LG V10 smartphone that suffers from a bootloop
defect, in which the phone goes into a "death-spiral" of suddenly
switching off and remaining stuck on the LG "Life's Good" start-up
screen.

The complaint says product reviews, blogs and other consumer
resource forums indicate that many consumers have experienced the
bootloop problem.

"These are high-end smart phones that consumers expected to last,"
attorney for the plaintiffs Benjamin F. Johns of Chimicles &
Tikellis LLP told Law360. "Not only is there an economic injury in
terms of having to pay for a repair or replacement -- many of the
consumers we have heard from reported losing data and pictures on
their phones when this occurs."

The complaint alleges a host of state law violations including
unfair competition and fraud by concealment, as well as violations
of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act for breach of implied
warranty of merchantability and the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act.

LG released the V10 in October 2015, and at the time heralded the
device for its advanced multimedia capabilities, the complaint
says.

Named plaintiff Herrera says he purchased a brand-new V10 phone
and accessories at a Verizon store in San Luis Obispo, California,
for $672. But shortly after the one-year warranty expired, Herrera
experienced the bootloop problem "which rendered his phone
completely useless," the complaint says.

V10 owners have expressed concerns about the defect on forums such
as  Amazon review pages, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, the
complaint says.

"It has been reported that the problem originates from a hardware
defect that causes the phone to overheat," the complaint says.
"Whatever the origin of the problem may be, it has left consumers
with smartphones that do not work as intended and, in the case of
instances where the defect manifests even slightly outside of the
warranty period, with no recourse."

Some consumers report losing data or photos after bootloop events,
or being denied warranty coverage under the pretense of a
scratched screen, the complaint says

Even thought LG is aware -- "or should be aware" -- of the defect,
it isn't warning purchasers about it, the complaint says.

"The facts concealed and omitted by defendants to plaintiff and
the other class members -- that the V10 smartphones are defective
and would fail prematurely -- are material in that a reasonable
consumer would have considered them to be important in deciding
whether to purchase the V10 smartphones or pay a lower price," the
complaint says.

The proposed class includes anyone who owns or previously owned an
LG V10 who incurred out-of-pocket expenses related to the bootloop
defect. The complaint says the number of potential class members -
- unknown but believed by the plaintiffs to be in the thousands --
merits a class action to avoid the hassle, expense and
inconsistencies of individual cases.

Requested relief includes actual, general, special, incidental,
statutory, punitive and consequential damages, as well as an
injunction requiring LG to repair, recall or replace the V10
phones and extend applicable warranties.

A representative for LG didn't immediately respond to a request
for comment on February 10.

The consumers are represented by Brian S. Kabateck --
bsk@kbklawyers.com --, Drew R. Ferrandini -- drf@kbklawyers.com --
and Lina B. Melidonian -- lbm@kbklawyers.com -- of Kabateck Brown
Kellner LLP, Brian D. Chase and Jerusalem F. Beligan of Bisnar
Chase LLP and Benjamin F. Johns -- bj@chimicles.com --, Andrew W.
Ferich AF@chimicles.com -- and Jessica L. Titler --
JT@chimicles.com -- of Chimicles & Tikellis LLP.

Counsel information for LG Electronics USA Inc. wasn't immediately
available.

The case is Herrera v. LG Electronics USA Inc., case number 2:17-
cv-01039 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.


LIBERTY-ANN: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Grenier" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Grenier, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Liberty-Ann Painting Inc. and Jonathon
Savarese, Case No. 8:17-cv-00230-RAL-JSS (M.D. Fla., January 30,
2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for all hours worked over 40 hours a week.

The Plaintiff works for the Defendants as a manual laborer and
painter.

The Defendants own and operate a residential and commercial
painting company located at 8205 Delaware Drive, Spring Hill,
Florida 34607.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
      MITCHELL L. FELDMAN, ESQ., P.A.
      18801 N. Dale Mabry Hwy. #563
      Tampa, FL 33548
      Telephone: (813) 639-9366
      Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
      E-mail: mlf@feldmanlegal.us


LINC ENERGY: Community Split on Gas Contamination Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Newton, writing for Chinchilla News, reports that some
Hopeland landholders are "ropeable" that reports alleging further
contamination from the Linc Energy Underground Coal Gasification
trial site were leaked to the media before property owners were
contacted by the department.

Brian Bender, son of the late George Bender, was visited by two
journalists late on Feb. 9 who wanted to take photos of him but
wouldn't tell him what the story was about.

He refused.

That night, as he was loading grain into a truck in the shed at a
family property, his mother Pam came down to tell him
investigators had detected hydrogen outside the 175 sq km
Excavation Caution Zone (ECZ) set up by the Department of
Environment and Heritage Protection in February 2015.

Mr Bender, who has two properties outside the zone, said it was
"disgraceful" how the news emerged.

"I was upset, very angry," he said.

Sitting around Pam Bender's kitchen table on Feb. 13 at her
Hopeland property "Valencia", State Environment Minister Dr Steven
Miles, along with DEHP deputy director general Dean Ellwood and
two other department officers were listening as
Mr Bender put it to them straight: "We needed to know before those
guys, it's as simple as that".

It has been just under two years since State Environment Minister
Dr Steven Miles last visited the area regarding the issue.

"We told them (at the last meeting) we wanted to hear from the
department first . . . we said we want updates and what not,"
Mr Bender said.

"I haven't had any updates for a damn long time and to be told by
the media there was something going on . . . is disgraceful."

The Chinchilla News understands that department heads are furious
the reports of the alleged contamination were leaked.

Dr Miles apologised to Mr Bender "for how it's happened",
insisting the department "moved as quickly as they could".

Explaining the new results, Mr Ellwood said the latest advice
suggested that levels of hydrogen in the soil around Hopeland did
not pose an explosive risk, rather a "flammability risk".

He also suggested the size and shape of the ECZ could change in
the near future.

Mr Bender raised a number of concerns during the half hour
meeting, including asking for a moratorium on Coal Seam Gas
drilling in the ECZ, the potential impact on the local water table
of rehabilitation works, the effect of the ongoing investigation
on property values, and whether the government could insert a
special clause into the statute of limitations legislation,
specifically exempting Linc Energy, so as to cover the community
in the event that the contamination worsens in the future.

No guarantees were made by the department during the meeting on
any of those issues.

Mr Bender has signed onto a class action against Linc Energy and
the State Government, which is being led by his mother Pam.

But the community is split on the issue and some are concerned
pursuing the class action will impact property values.

"We need a law now to cover us that allows us plenty of time (to
build our case) if anything comes to that point," Mr Bender said.

"I hope it doesn't come to that point, but hey, it's our future,
and it's our grandchildren's future.

"If we don't do it now, whoever owns this place in 30 years' time
is going to feel that we sat here and did nothing."

Responding to a question from Mr Bender, Mr Ellwood said the $28
million rehabilitation figure quoted in media reports was for the
lawful activities Linc had conducted -- not the alleged unlawful
contamination which was the focus of the department's
investigation and the current court cases against Linc Energy and
its directors.

Mr Ellwood added the government had recently provided further
funding to drill bores to understand exactly the characteristics
of the underground gasifiers at the Linc Energy site.

"To understand exactly where it is, how much is in it, and then
continue to work on what are the options about rehabilitating
those gasifiers," he said.

"It's a very methodical testing process doing that
characterisation work to understand what we are dealing with and
then the further steps about turning scientists minds to what are
the best options to go about (rehabilitation).

"Clearly things like water allocations and water draw-downs
etcetera need to be a part of that."

Dr Miles visited the Linc Energy site on Feb. 13, before meeting
with Western Downs Regional Council mayor Paul McVeigh in Dalby.


LOUISIANA: Underfunds Public Defender System, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------
Legal Solutions Blog reports a group of law firms and civil rights
organizations has filed a proposed class action accusing Louisiana
of funding public defenders at "abysmal" levels that violate the
constitutional guarantee of competent court-appointed counsel for
indigent criminal defendants.

In a complaint filed Feb. 6 in Louisiana's 19th Judicial District
Court, a coalition led by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights says the state's "chronically
underfunded" public defender system is "in shambles"  --
understaffed, overworked and "on the verge of collapse."

The resulting "structural barriers to the right to counsel"
deprive indigent defendants of competent attorneys, violating
their rights under the Sixth and 14th Amendments of the U.S.
Constitution and Section 13 of the Louisiana Constitution, the
civil rights groups claim.

"Structural limitations on the public defender system, including
the acute lack of resources, endemic conflicts of interest, lack
of independence, unreasonably high workloads and lack of
supervision[,] create an impenetrable barrier to effective
representation," the suit says.

"Without access to the effective assistance of counsel, the poor
stand alone against the full unchecked power of the state," the
complaint adds. "They are denied not only their right to a fair
trial, but are powerless to exercise the other fundamental rights
guaranteed by the Constitution."

The suit names Republican Gov. John Bel Edwards and the members of
the Louisiana Public Defender Board as defendants.

The two civil rights groups leading the suit, along with law firms
Jones Walker LLP and Davis Polk & Wardell, which together already
represent a dozen named plaintiffs, are seeking to certify a class
of everyone in the state facing potential prison time without a
lawyer of his or her own.

                         400 Felonies a Year

According to the complaint, Louisiana's public defender system is
so badly understaffed that lawyers often must work two to five
times the recommended caseload, sometimes dealing with up to 400
felonies a year, meaning many of them must see an average of two
full felony cases through from start to finish every day.

That state of affairs leaves public defenders so swamped that they
often do not have time to meet with their clients in advance,
investigate potential defenses, talk to witnesses, prepare a trial
strategy, file court motions or perform other essential legal
work, the civil rights groups claim.

"To meet these obligations, public defenders need resources," the
suit says.

Moreover, more than 30 of the state's 42 public defender districts
eventually had to put clients  --  including some in jail pending
a bail application  --  on waiting lists last year or turn them
away altogether, the suit says.

Judges throughout the state responded by appointing civil
litigators with no criminal-law experience to serve as emergency
counsel, which the complaint calls "akin to appointing an
anesthesiologist to perform surgery."

Worse, the suit says, some judges either forced prosecutors to
serve as defense counsel or stopped appointing lawyers for
indigent defendants altogether.

Local funding sources

The plaintiffs blame the public defender system's inequities and
inadequacies on the state's disorganized and regressive manner of
paying for public defenders.

Unlike any other state, Louisiana funds public defenders mainly
through local "user fees," such as parking tickets, traffic
tickets and other civil fines, according to the complaint.

Although the state does technically appropriate some public
defender funding to mitigate the worst local budget shortfalls,
that money is unreliable, the suit claims.

Depending on where they practice, public defenders may have $111
to $553 to spend on each case they work, with a statewide average
of $238 --  "an amount well below what many lawyers charge for a
single hour of work," the complaint says.

The inadequate funding levels violate the Louisiana Public
Defender Act, La. Rev. Stat. Sec. 15:141, by preventing public
defenders from living up to professional standards set by the
state, the civil rights groups argue.

Those guidelines include, among other requirements: meeting jailed
defendants face-to-face within 72 hours and attempting to have
them released on bail; conducting thorough investigations and
securing defense witnesses, including potential experts; and
filing motions and negotiating pleas.

'Failing miserably' under Gideon

According to the complaint, the situation is so dire that
Louisiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Bernette Johnson declared an
"emergency shortfall" in late December.

About a month later, U.S. District Judge James J. Brady of the
Middle District of Louisiana dismissed a suit challenging the
public defender system, saying the issue belongs in state court.
Yarls v. Bunton, No. 16-cv-31, 2017 WL 424874 (M.D. La. Jan. 31,
2017).

But even as he decided not to hear the case, Judge Brady assailed
what he characterized as unconstitutionally low funding levels.

"It is clear that the Louisiana Legislature is failing miserably
at upholding its obligations under Gideon," he wrote, referring to
the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Gideon v. Wainwright,
372 U.S. 335 (1963), which established the right to counsel in
state court criminal cases.

"Budget shortages are no excuse to violate the United States
Constitution," Judge Brady added. "The Legislature must resolve
the crisis and locate a stable source of funding."

A funding imbalance

Prosecutors, meanwhile, enjoy major resource advantages statewide
thanks to funding sources that are significantly more stable and
robust, such as nondiscretionary annual appropriations by the
Legislature, according to the complaint.

District attorneys typically receive at least twice the funding of
their counterparts in public defender offices, and "in the worst
districts" they enjoy up to five times as much, the suit says.

The civil rights groups stress in the complaint that they are not
seeking anyone's release from jail or pretrial detention. The suit
instead seeks an injunction ordering Louisiana, in broad strokes,
to fix its public defender system, as well as the appointment of a
court monitor to ensure compliance.

The proposed plaintiff class excludes capital defendants because
they draw representation from a different pool of "death
certified" defense attorneys that is not in the same allegedly
"woeful" state.

Allen et al. v. Bel Edwards et al., docket number unavailable,
complaint filed (La. Dist. Ct., 19th Dist. Feb. 6, 2017).


LOURDES MEDICAL: Denial of Class Cert. Bid in "Chavez" Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Washington affirmed the trial court's
denial of class certification in the case captioned JUDITH Q.
CHAVEZ, KATHLEEN CHRISTIANSON, ORALIA GARCIA, and MARRIETTA JONES,
individually, and on behalf of all similarly situated registered
nurses employed by Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital at Pasco, d/b/a
Lourdes Medical Center, Petitioners, v. OUR LADY OF LOURDES
HOSPITAL AT PASCO, d/b/a LOURDES MEDICAL CENTER and JOHN SERLE,
individually and in his capacity as an agent and officer of
Lourdes Medical Center, Respondents, No. 33556-9-III (Wash. Ct.
App.).

Marietta Jones, Oralia Garcia, Kathleen Christianson, and Judith
Chavez, present or former nurses at Pasco's Lourdes Medical
Center, sued the hospital and its administrator, John Serle, for
allegedly failing to provide nurses with rest periods and meal
periods and failing to pay wages owed as a result of the denial of
the periods.

The trial court refused to certify the lawsuit as a class action,
ruling that the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) were met,
but that the nurses failed to establish one of the three
alternative prerequisites under Rule 23(b), including predominance
and superiority as required by Rule 23(b)(3).  The nurses appealed
from the trial court's ruling.

The Court of Appeals of Washington deferred to the trial court and
affirmed its denial of certification, holding that the trial court
is in the best position to determine whether a class action is the
superior method of resolving a lawsuit.  The appellate court
concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
making its decision.

A full-text copy of the Court's February 9, 2017 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/S4qjNx from Leagle.com.

Petitioners were represented by:

          Jack B. Krona Jr., Esq.
          6509 46th St Nw
          Gig Harbor, WA 98335-7212

            -- and --

          James Gerard McGuinness, Esq.
          5030 1st Ave S. Ste 101
          Seattle, WA 98134-2438

            -- and --

          Aaron M. Streepy, Esq.
          STREEPY LAW, PLLC
          5030 1st Ave S. Ste 101
          Seattle, WA 98134-2438
          Tel: (253)258-0278
          Fax: (253)258-0276
          Email: aaron@mcguinnessstreepy.com

Respondent(s) are represented by:

          Aaron Bass, Esq.
          111 Sw 5th Ave Ste 1200
          Portland, OR 97204-3613
          Tel: (248)566-8609
          Fax: (248)566-8610
          Email: abass@honigman.com

            -- and --

          Rebecca Watkins, Esq.
          SATHER BYERLY & HOLLOWAY LLP
          111 Sw 5th Ave Ste 1200
          Portland, OR 97204-3613
          Tel: (503)595-2134
          Email: rwatkins@sbhlegal.com


LTG LLC: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Florida Record, reports that a
class action has been filed against a car rental company in Orange
County over allegations of not paying employees the proper
overtime rate.

Miguel Miranda filed a complaint on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated on Jan. 27 in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division against LTG
LLC citing the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he suffered
damages caused by defendant's unlawful practices of not
compensating employees their overtime wages at a proper rate and
not keeping an accurate record of employees' hours worked.  The
plaintiffs hold LTG LLC responsible because the defendant
allegedly failed to properly apprise its employees of their rights
under the FLSA, failed to provide an accurate record of its
employees' hours worked, and failed to compensate its employees of
proper overtime wages at a rate of time-and-one-half.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment against
defendants, designate collective action, unpaid overtime wages,
declaratory judgment, unpaid back wages, interest, costs,
attorney's fees, and further relief as the court deems just.  He
is represented by Donna V. Smith of Wenzel Fenton Cabassa PA in
Tampa.

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando
Division Case number 17-cv-00143


MECHEL BLUESTONE: Settles WARN Violation Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Sarah Plummer, writing for Register-Herald Reporter, reports that
the terms of a settlement between Mechel Bluestone Inc. and miners
who allege they were laid off unlawfully from a Wyoming County
mine in 2013 have been reached.

Before the class action settlement is finalized, federal Judge
Irene Berger, Southern District Court, must approve the agreement.

If she approves the settlement, 64 miners laid off at the Double-
Bonus Mine No. 65 will have the chance to receive a cash
settlement or to be given priority for future Mechel Bluestone
jobs.

The mediation agreement filed in federal court last month
indicates the group of miners can receive $300,000.  That money,
minus attorney fees, will be split among the miners who opt for a
cash payment.  Each will receive at least $3,000, or more
depending on how many take this option.

Should they choose the second option, the miners will be
considered for every full-time job at Bluestone entities
controlled or operated in McDowell, Wyoming, Mercer and Raleigh
counties.  The miners will be given priority based on seniority.

Miners who take the job option must be paid at least $28 an hour
for the first year of employment.

Miners who are part of the class action lawsuit claim they were
laid off between Nov. 20, 2013, and Dec. 19, 2013, in violation of
the WARN Act (Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act).

The miners were allegedly laid off verbally, without a 60-day
notice, and their medical and dental coverage was improperly
terminated.

Attorneys with the Charleston-based nonprofit legal team at
Mountain State Justice currently have four WARN Act cases pending
against Mechel Bluestone entities -- Bluestone Industries,
Bluestone Coal Corp. and Keystone Industries.

More than 120 miners allege they were laid off without notice from
Coal Mountain Surface Mine Number 1 in Wyoming County during the
same period in 2013.

More than 50 miners allege to have been laid off illegally from
Pay Car Mine located near McDowell County around October 2012.

Another 50 allege to have been laid off in violation of the WARN
Act from the Burke Mountain Strip Mine near the southern border of
Wyoming County around December 2011.

To bring a suit under the WARN Act, at least 50 people and 33
percent of the workers must be laid off.

Mechel Bluestone is owned by Gov. Jim Justice.

Justice sold Mechel Bluestone in 2009 to Russia's OAO Mechel for a
combination of cash and Mechel stock valued at $568 million.

He purchased the mines back for $5 million in February 2015,
reopening some mine locations and creating around 150 jobs.


MIDLAND CREDIT: "Johnston" Class Action Claims Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert Holmes Bell of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Michigan granted dismissed the
class action claims in the case captioned, CHRIS JOHNSTON,
Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-437 (W.D. Mich.).

Plaintiff incurred credit card debt totaling $1,406.43. He failed
to make his monthly payments and defaulted. On February 24, 2016,
MCM sent a letter to Plaintiff, which stated that he had been pre-
approved for a discount program to pay off his debt and provided
him with three repayment options. After receiving the letter,
Plaintiff retained counsel, who advised Plaintiff to call MCM and
indicate that he wanted to proceed with the second option which
listed a blank discount rate percentage and a monthly payment of
$0.00 due on March 25, 2016.

Plaintiff brought an action under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (Act), alleging false, deceptive, and misleading
statements in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e. Defendants are
Midland Credit Management (MCM), Plaintiff's debt servicer,
Midland Funding, Plaintiff's debt owner, and Encore Capital Group,
their parent company.

Plaintiff's amended complaint alleges that the second option in
the letter was false, misleading, or deceptive, in violation of
the Act's Sections 1692e(10) and 1692e.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6). Defendants
also argue that Plaintiff cannot plead facts to support the
requirements of a class action under Rules 23(a) and 23(b).

In his Opinion dated January 26, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/8I59aQ from Leagle.com, Judge Bell found that
Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently plead that the statement was
materially false, deceptive, or misleading, he also has failed to
sufficiently plead that he was materially misled by the statement.
Because Plaintiff lacks standing and has failed to plead a
plausible claim for relief under the Act, his class action claims
are also dismissed.

Chris Johnston is represented by:

      Curtis Charles Warner, Esq.
      WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC
      350 S. Northwest HWY, Ste. 300
      Park Ridge, IL 60068
      Tel: (847)701-5290

            -- and --

      Bert Thomas Golden, Esq.
      GOLDEN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
      203 South Main Street, Suite 13
      Goshen, IN 46526
      Tel: (574)538-2228

Midland Credit Management, Inc., et al. are represented by Aaron
L. Vorce, Esq. -- avorce@dykema.com -- Erin A. Sedmak, Esq. --
esedmak@dykema.com -- and -- Theodore W. Seitz, Esq. --
tseitz@dykema.com -- DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC


MONSANTO CO: Faces Class Action Over Dicamba Herbicide
------------------------------------------------------
J R Pegg, writing for Agra-Net, reports that farmers from the US
state of Missouri have filed a class action lawsuit against
Monsanto, alleging that the company is liable for crop damage from
illegal spraying of the herbicide, dicamba.


MONTGOMERY, PA: "Ellis" Suit over Inmates' Records Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Wendy Beetlestone granted the defendants' motion to dismiss
the case captioned ANTOINE ELLIS and DANIEL SPEAKMAN, Plaintiffs,
v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY and MONTGOMERY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILTY,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-2143 (E.D. Pa.).

Antoine Ellis and Daniel Speakman brought a putative state-law
class action asserting federal court jurisdiction under the Class
Action Fairness Act (CAFA), on behalf of themselves and all others
whose arrest records and personal information were made widely
available on the Internet through the Inmate Locator maintained by
the defendants Montgomery County and the Montgomery County
Correctional Facility (MCCF), allegedly in violation of the
Pennsylvania Criminal History Records Information Act (CHRIA).

The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction, arguing both that the plaintiffs do not have
standing to bring this suit and that two mandatory exceptions to
CAFA-based jurisdiction -- the "home state" exception and the
"local controversy" exception -- require the Court to decline
jurisdiction over this matter.  The plaintiffs contested the
application of these exceptions.

The plaintiffs argued that the exceptions apply only to cases
removed from state court.  The plaintiffs argued that the
statutory language which ties the CAFA exceptions to citizenship
and events in "the State in which the action was originally filed"
should be read as "the State [court] in which the action was
originally filed," which, the plaintiffs suggest, would imply that
the exceptions can be invoked only by a party seeking a remand to
state court.

Judge Beetlestone, however, found that the plaintiffs have not
identified any authority that affirmatively supports their
position.  The judge explained that if Congress had intended the
exceptions to apply only to cases removed from state court, it
could have expressly created such a limitation.  It did not.  The
judge pointed out that the statute contains no reference to "State
court," "remand," "removal," or any other basis for limiting the
scope of the exceptions to removal cases.  Judge Beetlestone thus
held that the CAFA exceptions are appropriately invoked by
Defendants.

The plaintiffs also argued that even if the exceptions apply to
matters originally filed in federal court, the defendants have
failed to prove that more than two-thirds of the proposed class
members are citizens of Pennsylvania.  Both of the mandatory CAFA
exceptions invoked by the defendants apply only when two-thirds of
the proposed plaintiff class members are citizens of the state in
which the action was originally filed.

The defendants sought to prove the class members' citizenship with
evidence of residency.  To establish that more than two-thirds of
class members are Pennsylvania citizens, the defendants have shown
that more than 90% of inmates at MCCF report a Pennsylvania
address when they are booked.  Given that there is no evidence to
suggest that individuals booked at MCCF were unusually transient
or that the class members who were Pennsylvania residents migrated
en masse to other states after their release from MCCF, Judge
Beetlestone held that the most likely conclusion from the
defendants' limited sample is that the proportion of class members
still residing in Pennsylvania after their release from MCCF
approximates the 91% share of MCCF inmates who reported a
Pennsylvania address at their booking.  Considering the record as
a whole, the judge found that defendants have shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that more than two-thirds of the
members of the proposed class are citizens of Pennsylvania.

Since it is undisputed that the proposed class exceeds 100 members
and that the defendants are citizens of Pennsylvania, the finding
that more than two-thirds of the class members are also citizens
of Pennsylvania triggers CAFA's home state exception and requires
the Court to decline jurisdiction over this matter.

Judge Beetlestone thus granted the defendants' motion and the case
was dismissed without prejudice.

A full-text copy of Judge Beetlestone's January 27, 2017 opinion
is available at https://is.gd/Rz2Bhs from Leagle.com.

ANTOINE ELLIS, DANIEL SPEAKMAN, Plaintiffs, represented by ALAN E.
DENENBERG, ABRAMSON & DENENBERG, JONATHAN SHUB --
jshub@kohnswift.com -- KOHN SWIFT & GRAF PC & KEVIN LAUKAITIS --
klaukaitis@kohnswift.com -- KOHN SWIFT & GRAF PC.

MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MONTGOMERY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,
Defendants, represented by NICOLE R. FORZATO, OFFICE OF THE
SOLICITOR & PHILIP W. NEWCOMER, MONTGOMERY COUNTY SOLICITOR'S
OFFICE.


MYLAN INC: Illegally Inflates Clomipramine Price, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
FWK Holdings, L.L.C., on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. Mylan, Inc., Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Taro
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and Sandoz, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-
00626 (D.N.J., January 30, 2017), is an action for damages as a
result of the Defendants and co-conspirators' overarching
anticompetitive scheme in the market for generic clomipramine to
artificially inflate prices through unlawful agreements between
and among would-be competitors.

The Defendants develop, manufacture, and market prescription drugs
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John D. Radice, Esq.
      RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C.
      34 Sunset Blvd
      Long Beach, NJ 08008
      Telephone: (646) 245-8502
      Facsimile: (609) 385-0745
      E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com

         - and -

      Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
      David S. Nalven, Esq.
      Lauren Guth Barnes, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
      Cambridge, MA 02142
      Telephone: (617) 482-3700
      Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
      E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com
              davidn@hbsslaw.com
              lauren@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

      Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
      David P. Germaine, Esq.
      Jeffrey R. Moran, Esq.
      VANEK, VICKERS & MASINI, P.C.
      55 W. Monroe Suite 3500
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 224-1500
      E-mail: jvanek@vaneklaw.com
              dgermaine@vaneklaw.com
              jgeller@vaneklaw.com


NATIONAL HOCKEY: Seeks Access to BU Concussion Research Data
------------------------------------------------------------
The Daily Free Press reports that the National Hockey League is
facing serious allegations from former players that playing
professional hockey has been extremely harmful to their health.

The NHL requested research conducted by Boston University
scientists regarding the connection between concussions from
playing hockey and chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or C.T.E.,
according to an article from The New York Times.  The NHL asked BU
for their unpublished data.  The university denied the request, so
the league has filed legal documents to gain access to the
information.

The NHL has been interested in any information regarding CTE
because of a class-action lawsuit by many former players against
the league for supposedly hiding the dangers of playing
professional hockey, specifically regarding brain trauma,
according to the article.

The NHL does not have grounds to request this information. They're
not funding BU's research and have no involvement in it other than
the desire to be informed on the CTE findings.  There is no
justification for the league to gain all of the information
associated with this case, especially when the donors to BU's
research requested anonymity before participating in the study.
The league would have an avenue to these player's medical records
and interview their family conducted with researchers, which seems
as an incredible invasion of privacy.  The NHL wants to have all
available information in order to combat the lawsuits of
negligence by their players, but this research is incomplete.
Their actions are completely self-motivated and extremely
unwarranted.

Boston University has every right to deny the league's request for
their research.  Not only is the research incomplete, but this
would halt the university's research for months.  Why should they
release this information before the results are conclusive? Why
would the NHL even want their findings if they are still in the
middle of their study? BU should not feel compelled to hand over
this information.  By doing so, they'd be risking the full and
correct results of their research, as well as publicizing private
information of those who donated their brains to science.

It seems that the NHL only wants this information to interrupt the
progress of BU's researchers.  They want to have this information,
though incomplete, so they will know what scientific research
they'll be up against in their impending lawsuit.  The league
doesn't want BU to reach the conclusion that there is a
significant correlation between concussions in hockey players and
CTE.  This would be detrimental to their industry and discredit
all statements that hockey is a relatively safe sport.

When the NFL went through this battle for themselves, they lost $1
billion in a settlement.  For an industry worth almost $75
billion, that price was doable.  For the NHL, worth $4 million,
that would cost money they don't have.  It would be extremely
damaging to hockey and create setbacks with unforeseeable effects.
By requesting this information from BU, the NHL is impeding on
their research and pausing their study from making a concrete
association between the two.  When BU finishes conducting their
research, then the league will have the opportunity to read over
their findings, not before it is final.

Though they're going to incredible measures to stop this research,
the NHL is fighting a losing battle.  Science is science.  And if
it proves injuries that players receive in professional hockey
games can lead to C.T.E., the league will have to admit that their
sport can be dangerous for players. We've watched the NFL fight
this battle against science for years and lose.  The conclusion is
almost undeniable -- sports-related injuries are prevalent, and it
lead to serious health issues for players down the road.  The
NHL's efforts to see this research before it is published is
understandable considering the claims against them, but this is a
battle they will inevitably lose.  The league, and all others like
it, should spend more energy and resources on preventing these
injuries in the first place.


NATIONWIDE TRANSPORT: Fla. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Ferrero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Nationwide Transport Services, LLC, Case No. 0:17-cv-
60230-DPG (S.D. Fla., January 30, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs
and reasonable attorneys' fees, as well as declaratory and
injunctive relief, under the provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Nationwide Transport Services, LLC operates a shipping company
located at 1001 W Cypress Creek Rd Ste 108, Fort Lauderdale, FL
33309.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel R. Levine, Esq.
      PADULA BENNARDO LEVINE, LLP
      101 Plaza Real South, Suite 207
      Boca Raton, FL  33432
      Telephone: (561) 544-8900
      Facsimile: (561) 544-8999
      E-mail: DRL@PBL-Law.com


NESTLE: Plans to Vigorously Defend Suit Over Gerber Good Start
--------------------------------------------------------------
Darren at Legal Newsline reports that Nestle currently finds
itself in some hot water over its Gerber Good Start baby food, as
a class action lawsuit has been filed accusing the food company of
negligent misrepresentation. Nestle, however, claims it has done
nothing wrong and plans to vigorously defend itself against the
allegations.

A class action lawsuit was filed Jan. 6 in U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York by Wendy Manemeit that alleges
Gerber Products Co. (doing business as Nestle Nutrition, Nestle
Infant Nutrition and Nestle Nutrition North America) marketed Good
Start as reducing the susceptibility of infants to develop
allergies when the Food and Drug Administration, in fact, failed
to validate those claims.

Manemeit claims to have suffered damages through the purchase of
Good Start and is seeking restitution and disgorgement, actual,
statutory, punitive damages, interest and legal fees from Nestle.

For its part, Nestle/Gerber plans take on the lawsuit directly in
court. In a statement provided through Cathy Dunn of the Corporate
Affairs office, Nestle told Legal Newsline: "We are defending our
position because we believe we have met, and will continue to
meet, all legal requirements to make these product claims."

This is not the first time this issue with Good Start has been
contended. Back in October 2014, the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) filed a lawsuit against Gerber/Nestle wanting the company to
remove the health claims from the Good Start product.

The ingredient in question, hydrolyzed whey protein concentrate,
was approved by the FDA in 2009 to help treat atopic dermatitis,
but it was not approved to reduce the risk for other types of skin
allergies.

Gerber/Nestle was also required to quantify its advertising
statements that despite the product's approval, "there was little
scientific evidence to back it up."

The FTC alleged in its lawsuit that Gerber/Nestle both failed to
meet that requirement and misrepresented the nature of its claims
and the FDA responded by issuing a warning letter to
Gerber/Nestle. Now the lawsuit from Manemeit is claiming similar
allegations.

Nestle addressed these issues in the statement via Dunn by saying,
"Extensive, peer-reviewed scientific evidence supports the role of
100 percent whey protein partially hydrolyzed infant formula in
reducing the risk of atopic dermatitis, commonly known as baby
eczema, in infants with a family history of allergy. Further,
Gerber has been authorized by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration
(FDA) to feature a qualified health claim based on this evidence."

Nestle/Gerber also faced a class action suit filed in 2015 from
Oula Zakaria. That suit, which features thousands of buyers, was
approved in January of 2016 to proceed as class action over
alleged misrepresentation through advertising, so this has been a
recurring issue for Nestle/Gerber for the last several years.

"Gerber always has and will continue to treat its mission of
delivering nutrition and benefits to infants as its top priority,"
Dunn said. "We believe the information conveyed in our marketing
is important for parents who have children at risk for atopic
dermatitis, the most common allergy in infancy."


NEW MIAMI, OH: Must Repay $3MM Traffic Camera Speeding Citations
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a village must pay back all $3
million paid by drivers for speeding citations from automated
traffic cameras, a judge in Ohio says.

Butler County Judge Michael Oster issued his ruling on Feb. 8,
saying the money was unjust enrichment of New Miami, The Hamilton-
Middletown Journal-News reported.

The judge's ruling, per the newspaper, said: "This court has
already found council ordinance 1917 as adopted by the village of
New Miami to be unconstitutional.

Accordingly, any collection or retention of the monies collected
under the ordinance was wrongful.

"Based upon the aforementioned established Ohio law, this action
sub justice is therefore not a civil suit for money damages; but
rather, an action to correct the unjust enrichment of the village
of New Miami."

A judge ruled in 2014 that the village's camera enforcement was
unconstitutional.

Village Solicitor Dennis Adams told the newspaper that they have a
decade to pay the money back to the speeders.

The ruling is the latest round in appeals and disputes in the
case, and the village has said it will continue to challenge the
rule.

The village cited nearly 45,000 people in 15 months.
Video courtesy of Local 12

Cameras had been for the most part set up on US 127, which goes
through New Miami, according to Local 12.

New Miami' is probably going to appeal, according to the TV
station.

Its officers now use hand-held cameras to comply with state law
requiring that an officer be present when camera enforcement is
used.

A challenge by cities to that law is before the Ohio Supreme
Court.


NEW YORK: "Singh" Sues Taxi Commission for Deceptive Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daler Singh, d/b/a Gilzian Enterprise LLC, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. The City of New York
and The New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, Case No.
701402/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., January 30, 2017), arises out of the
Defendants' deceptive acts and practices of misrepresenting the
sale prices and the trend in sale prices of taxi medallions prior
to the auction sales and failing to disclose that they would
license black car bases and affiliated black cars without
requiring adherence to licensing statutes and rules.

City of New York is a municipal corporation duly incorporated and
existing pursuant to the laws of the State of New York.

New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission is an administrative
agency for the City of New York, created by Sec. 2300 of the New
York City Charter.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin Y. Kaufman, Esq.
      Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
      Correy A. Kamin, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4600
      Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
      E-mail: kaufman@whafh.com
              GMN@whath.com
              kamin@whafh.com

         - and -

      Daniel L. Ackman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL L. ACKMAN
      222 Broadway, 19th Floor
      New York, NY 10038
      Telephone: (917) 282-8178
      E-mail: d.ackman@comcast.net


NYS LEE: "Kang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Qi Jun Kang ("Mr. Kang"), on his own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. NYS Lee Incorporated d/b/a Shi To Go,
SNY Lee Incorporated d/b/a Shi To Go, Shih Yu Lee ("Yu Lee"), Shih
Nien "Skinny" Lee ("Nien Lee"), Case No. 1:17-cv-00534 (E.D.N.Y.,
January 30, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was hired by and worked for Defendants as a
dishwasher and kitchen helper for Shi to Go.

The Defendants own and operate Shi to Go, a restaurant located at
4720 Center Blvd., Long Island City, NY 11109.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


PAK O AVENUE: "Huitzil" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Huitzil, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Pak O Avenue Corp. d/b/a Key Food, Young Bruce Pak and Son Mi
Pak, Case No. 2:17-cv-00529 (E.D.N.Y., January 30, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime, unpaid spread of hours premium, statutory
penalties, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate the "Key Food" supermarket located
at 97 Avenue O, Brooklyn, NY 11204.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com
              cklee@leelitigation.com


PIMLICO PLUMBERS: Ruling May Impact Gig Economy Labor Rights
------------------------------------------------------------
Danica Kirka, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
London plumber who worked as a contractor for a company for years
has won a court ruling giving him employment rights, in a case
seen as a key test of labor rules in the so-called gig economy.

The Court of Appeal on Feb. 9 upheld a ruling that the plumber,
who worked for Pimlico Plumbers full-time for six years, was
entitled to rights such as sick pay.

Gary Smith claimed he was unfairly dismissed after seeking to
reduce his hours following a heart attack, while the company
argued he wasn't entitled to such protection because he was a
self-employed contractor.  Pimlico said it may appeal.

The case has significant implications for the estimated 100,000
independent contractors in Britain's gig economy, where people
work job-to-job with little security and few employment rights.
Such workers are often dispatched by app-based companies like the
ride-hailing service Uber, as the internet and smart phones cut
the link between jobs and the traditional workplace.

"This will be an important judgment for years to come," said
Sean Nesbitt, a partner in the employment team at the
international law firm Taylor Wessing, which is not involved in
the case.

The ruling is similar to one issued late last year by Britain's
employment tribunal in a case involving Uber.  That tribunal ruled
that two drivers who sued the company were employees and so were
entitled to paid time off and a guaranteed minimum wage.

The detail in the 31-page judgment in the Pimlico Plumbers case
suggests that the Court of Appeal wanted to offer clarity at a
time of dramatic change, Nesbitt said.

The court "is trying to lay the foundations for people in the gig
economy to understand their rights -- especially workers -- but
also businesses, and the judgments they need to make between
flexibility and protect their brand and customer base," he said.
"It's a senior court trying to close down loopholes."

Mr. Nesbitt particularly pointed to suggestions in the court
documents that "restrictive covenants" -- or those which prevent a
worker from seeking work with competitors -- may give otherwise
independent contractors the rights of workers.

"In other words, a business like Pimlico cannot have its cake and
eat it," Mr. Nesbitt said.  "If it wants to say someone is self-
employed, their economic freedom and ability to compete are an
important feature of that status."

Some companies have argued that the gig economy's system of self-
employment provides lifestyle benefits for people who choose where
and when to work.  Such arrangements also allow companies to avoid
many expenses associated with hiring full-time employees.


PIXARBIO CORPORATION: Sued Over False and Misleading Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Graham, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Pixarbio Corporation, f/k/a BMP Holdings, Inc., and
Francis Reynolds, Case No. 1:17-cv-10157-PBS (D. Mass., January
30, 2017), alleges that Defendants made false and misleading
statements, failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's combinations and current shareholders, the identity and
qualifications of key shareholders and employees, and the
company's current and prospective development efforts.

Pixarbio Corporation is a specialty pharmaceutical/biotechnology
company focused on preclinical and commercial development of novel
neurological drug delivery systems for post-operative pain.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
      Steven P. Harte, Esq.
      Bradley J. Vettraino, Esq.
      BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
      155 Federal Street, Suite 400
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 398-5600
      Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
      E-mail: jeff@blockesq.com
              steven@blockesq.com
              bradley@blockesq.com


PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Judge Denies Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Salls at Penn Record reports a proposed class of life
insurance beneficiaries have been denied certification in their
lawsuit that alleges that Prudential Insurance Co. of America
violated Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
regulations based on the method it used to make payments.

Recent court records show the plaintiffs will not appeal the
September ruling. Summary judgment motions will soon be filed.

In Huffman v. Prudential, the plaintiffs, who were paid the
benefits they were entitled to under employer-sponsored life
insurance policies, allege that the insurer improperly made the
payments from a retained asset account. Instead, the plaintiffs
claimed that the policies required the benefits to be paid in a
lump sum.

Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that Prudential benefited
from investments into the account established for payment of their
insurance benefits.

As a result of these investments, the plaintiffs alleged that the
insurance company was "not acting exclusively" on their behalf. In
addition, Troesh said the plaintiffs claimed that the handling of
the accounts violated an ERISA provision that, "prohibits
fiduciaries from causing a plan to partake in a transaction
involving the provision of services between a plan and a party in
interest."

"Class certification is not appropriate 'if proof of the essential
elements of the cause of action requires individual treatment,'"
Judge Joseph F. Leeson Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania wrote in his Sept. 30 ruling.
"Because (the plaintiffs) have not shown that common questions of
law or fact would predominate over individual disputes, their
motion is denied."

According to the opinion, Prudential pays any benefit claim that
exceeds $5,000 through its "Prudential Alliance Account" if the
insured or the beneficiary does not specify an alternate form of
payment.

In addition, Prudential notifies beneficiaries that their payments
will be made through this account and provides details about the
account and an "Alliance checkbook" that allows the beneficiary to
access the funds in his or her account.

"There are no limits on the beneficiary's ability to use these
checks to withdraw funds, which means that the beneficiary may, if
desired, withdraw the entire balance at once by writing a single
check for the full amount," Leeson wrote.

While plaintiff Clark R. Huffman made multiple draws on the
account, the court said plaintiff Brandi K. Winter withdrew the
entire payment in one transaction.

The plaintiffs asked the court to reconsider their motion for
class certification. However, Leeson denied the motion for
reconsideration on Dec. 13 because the "motion does not identify
any clear errors of law in the court's decision to deny class
certification or any other basis for reconsideration."

According to a letter sent to the court from the plaintiffs' co-
counsel on Dec. 28, Huffman and Winter decided not to appeal the
denial of the class certification and reconsideration motions.

"The remainder of the case, to be dealt with on an individual
basis, can, in the estimation of all counsel, probably be resolved
on cross-motions for summary judgment," the letter said.

A Dec. 29 order sets a Feb. 14 deadline for summary judgment
motions.


PVG RESTAURANT: Vague Time-keeping Hit in "Battle" Suit, Seeks OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Demetrius Battle as next friend and parent of Xavier Johnson, a
minor, Demetrius Battle as next friend and parent of Malik Green,
a minor, Demetrius Battle as next friend and parent of Joe Neal, a
minor, and Loretta Traylor as next friend and parent of Ebony
Collier, a minor individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PVG Restaurant Group, LLC d/b/a
Sonic, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00402, (N.D. Ga., January 30,
2017), seeks unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, liquidated
damages, and costs of litigation and reasonable attorney's fees
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

PVG operated the Sonic Restaurant located at 2208 Riverside
Parkway, Lawrenceville, GA 30043 where Plaintiffs are all minors
employed at the restaurant whose parents or guardians as their
next friends consented in writing to their inclusion in a
collective action.

Plaintiffs worked as carhops, cooks and fountain operators at the
Restaurant where PVG allegedly failed to assign them personal
identification numbers that would allow them access to the company
time-keeping device to record their work time, resulting in missed
breaks and unpaid overtime. Defendant is also alleged of paying
below minimum wage rates.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Charles R. Bridgers, Esq.
      Kevin D. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Esq.
      DELONG CALDWELL BRIDGERS FITZPATRICK & BENJAMIN, LLC
      3100 Centennial Tower
      101 Marietta Street
      Atlanta, GA 30303
      Tel: (404) 979-3171
      Fax: (404) 979-3170
      Email: kevin.fitzpatrick@dcbflegal.com
             charlesbridgers@dcbflegal.com


RBS CITIZENS: Court Awards $1.13-Mil. in Attorneys' Fees & Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Cynthia Bashant of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California granted Plaintiffs' motion
for attorneys' fees, costs and incentive award in the case
captioned, LINDA SANDERS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RBS CITIZENS, N.A., Defendant,
Case No. 13-cv-3136-BAS-RBB (S.D. Cal.).

On December 20, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a civil class action
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
47 U.S.C. Sections 227 et seq. (TCPA). Plaintiffs allege Defendant
used an automated telephone dialing system (ATDS) and prerecorded
voice messages to call the cellular telephones of class members
when attempting to collect student loan debts.

Defendant denies the allegations but agrees to the settlement to
avoid further litigation.

The Settlement contemplates that Defendant "shall pay
$4,551,267.50 to settle the Action and obtain a full release from
Settlement Class Members of all Released Claims." Plaintiffs'
attorneys request $1,137,816.88 as 25% of the overall class
settlement. Counsel detailed the actual attorneys' fees in the
amount of $600,059.50 to which counsel requests the Court apply a
1.896 multiplier for the result received. Plaintiffs' counsel
further requests $17,693.46 in costs, reimbursement of $874,249.20
for the costs of administering the class and $5000 incentive
payment for named plaintiff Linda Sanders.

In her Order dated January 25, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/LwscTO from Leagle.com, Judge Bashant found the
request for attorneys' fees, costs and incentive award as
reasonable and necessary, and authorized that these amounts be
paid from the Settlement Fund.

Linda Sanders is represented by Alexis M. Wood, Esq. --
alexis@consumersadvocates.com -- Kas L. Gallucci, Esq. --
kas@consumersadvocates.com -- and -- Ronald Marron, Esq. --
ron@consumersadvocates.com -- LAW OFFICE OF RONALD MARRON --
Douglas J. Campion, Esq. -- doug@djcampion.com -- LAW OFFICES OF
DOUGLAS J CAMPION

RBS Citizens, N.A. is represented by Raagini Shah, Esq. --
raagini@gmail.com -- and -- Raymond Y. Kim, Esq. --
rklm@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH, LLP


RIVERCREST COMMUNITY: Settlement Disastrous for Riverview Family
----------------------------------------------------------------
D'Ann Lawrence, writing for White Tampa Bay Times, reports that
Tina and Luis Lopez have owned their Rivercrest home for 12 years,
raised two children there, even taking part in community events
including the holiday decorating contest.

Now, they're just one step away from eviction -- not for failing
to keep up the payments like so many homeowners during the Great
Recession but for missing one annual homeowners' association fee
that amounted to no more than $150.

Worse yet, they even have a canceled check showing they made the
payment.

Still, late fees, lawyers costs and liens that have accrued in the
seven years since then -- combined with a notification system that
favors the homeowners' association over the homeowners -- landed
their property on the auction block.

Only a judge can keep them in their home now.  A hearing on their
appeal of the sale was held Jan. 25 and they await a ruling.

"We were good neighbors.  We followed the rules," said Tina Lopez,
43.  "How can people be so cold-hearted?"

The Lopez family is just one of the 1,386 owners of single-family
homes, town homes and villas who are expected to pay dues each
January to the Rivercrest Community Association.  But they're not
the only ones raising questions about the association's aggressive
pursuit of fees.

This approach can end in foreclosures that attract investors who
open the community to rentals -- a concern of former association
board member Cheryl Cusack.

In the past two years, Cusack said, the number of rentals has
grown to account for 39 percent of all homes in Rivercrest.

"These are the people who are supposed to be looking out for
residents.  They're supposed to make Rivercrest a better, safer
community," she said. "Personal agendas, egos and the need for
power have gotten in the way and morphed the homeowners'
association into a money-making machine at the expense of the
community and its residents."

In 2015, the Tampa law firm that goes after fees for the
homeowners' association settled a class action lawsuit in which it
was accused of misleading property owners about consumer rights,
inflating debts and failing to give them a chance to agree on fee
amounts.

Michael Greenwald, the Boca Raton attorney who brought the
lawsuit, said the Tampa firm, Bush Ross, makes its money by
collecting from individual homeowners rather than taking a flat
fee from the many associations it represents.

This puts homeowners at a big disadvantage, Mr. Greenwald said.

"In its effort to collect delinquent homeowners' fees," he said,
"Bush Ross takes legal action that can result in property owners
losing their homes."

Upon settlement of the class action lawsuit, 258 property owners -
- including the Lopez family in Rivercrest -- received checks of
$300 from Bush Ross.

But the settlement proved disastrous for the Lopezes.  They
thought it meant they were finally even with the homeowners'
association.

As it turns out, their debt just spiraled faster.

The beginning

The family's troubles, they say, began in 2009 when the
homeowners' association failed to record the Lopez' annual $150
dues payment.

The association doesn't send out bill notices, expecting property
owners on their own to send in the money each January.

The Lopezes paid it late, May instead of January, but Lopez has a
copy -- as she does for each of the 12 years they've lived in
Rivercrest.

"They never notified us of any problem so we had no reason to
think they hadn't received our check," she said.

Brian Smith, who lives down the street from the Lopezes, also
faulted the association for its lack of notice -- and for what he
called "strong-arm tactics."

"Residents are living in a state of fear," Mr. Smith said.  "The
HOA expects us to pay our annual fees each January but they don't
send out a due letter. With everything happening around the
holidays, it's easy to forget to pay."

Four years later, in October 2013, the Lopez family received a
notice from Bush Ross that the firm would be placing a lien on
their property unless they paid the disputed dues plus late fees,
administrative fees and interest -- a total of $785 -- within 30
days.

"We were stunned," Tina Lopez said.  "We had all the records
showing we had sent in all of our dues.  This didn't make sense."

It made sense to Cusack, the former association board member. In
2009, she said, the association was in the process of changing
management companies over concerns about proper record keeping.

"Checks were lost; people weren't credited when they paid their
dues," Cusack said.

Two board members spent days going through the books, trying to
find all the errors.

"Unfortunately, they didn't catch the mistake with Tina's check,"
she said.

The Lopezes said they couldn't afford to pay $785.  They were
facing expenses related to job layoffs, hospitalizations and
starting their own cleaning company.  Instead, they offered the
proof that they had paid year after year.

They didn't realize that all those payments after 2009 didn't go
to their annual dues but toward administrative and late fees
imposed by Bush Ross in connection with the disputed payment.

Bush Ross responded by filing a lawsuit on behalf of the
homeowners' association board.  By that time, the firm claimed the
Lopezes owed $2,196.

The couple offered to settle for the $785.  In an April 2014
letter, Bush Ross said the board denied the offer but would be
willing to set up a payment plan.

The Lopezes agreed and were making payments when they received the
class action notice from attorney Greenwald, accusing Bush Ross of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Bush Ross attorney Charles Glausier declined to comment last month
on the Lopez case because the auction sale is still in court.

Mr. Glausier said Bush Ross only takes legal action with an
association's blessing: "We follow the direction of the board of
directors."

A large part of the firm's practice is representing homeowners'
associations, he said, perhaps hundreds of them.

Bush Ross has filed formal notice of liens with the Hillsborough
County Circuit Clerk against 72 homes in Rivercrest, a review of
the clerk's records shows.

"Only 10 (percent) to 15 percent of these cases turn into
foreclosures," Mr. Glausier said.  "It happened more often during
the recession when almost every association was having a rough
time collecting fees.  But you see it less today."

Stopping payments

The first thing the Lopezes did when they received their $300
settlement check was to stop making monthly payments to Bush Ross.

"We assumed since they settled, we didn't owe them anymore,"
Luis Lopez said.

That decision may cost them their home, said Tampa attorney
Betty Thomas, who took on the Lopez' case two weeks ago.

"I can see why they felt they shouldn't make payments to a law
firm that settled a lawsuit in which they were a party,"
Ms. Thomas said.  "They thought the lawsuit voided their
settlement.  But it was a mistake not to continue with the
settlement payments."

Once the payments stopped, Bush Ross filed a lawsuit to foreclose.

"We tried to get in touch with them about the lawsuit but we were
never able to talk to anyone," said Luis Lopez, 53.  "They say
they got in touch with us to settle but we never received anything
by certified or regular mail."

Mr. Glausier said his firm routinely provides property owners
notice of any action it takes, and Ms. Thomas acknowledged that
there is evidence a copy of the sale notice was sent to the Lopez'
address.

"The odds are against them," Ms. Thomas said.  "It's a lot tougher
to win these cases when a third party has already put up the funds
to purchase the property."

She added, "They usually put tenants in these homes and rent them
out."

Current members of the homeowners' association board did not
respond to requests for interviews.  The management company for
Rivercrest, Wise Property Management, declined to comment.

Smith, the Lopez' neighbor, said he has had his own battles with
the homeowners' association during the 12 years he's lived in
Rivercrest -- most recently over weeds in his front garden.

"So we redid the entire garden over Mother's Day and sent the HOA
photos," Mr. Smith said.  Still, Bush Ross notified him he'd
racked up $1,000 in fines and attorney's fees.

"We ended up settling just to get them off our backs," he said.

Mr. Smith has sold his home in Rivercrest, saying, "I'll never
again live in a community with a homeowners' association."

The Lopezes, meantime, are pleading with a judge to let them stay
in Rivercrest with their children Anthony, 16, and Jessica, 8.

When they bought the four-bedroom, three-bath, two-story home for
$270,000, the couple was moving to Riverview from a cramped
apartment in Brooklyn.

"We thought we were living the American dream," Luis Lopez said,
"but it's turned into a nightmare.


RPM INT'L: Awaits Final Nod of Settlement in Suit v. Rust-Oleum
---------------------------------------------------------------
RPM International Inc. is awaiting final court approval of a $9.3
million settlement resolving a consolidated class action lawsuit
involving a subsidiary, the Company said in its Form 10-Q filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 9, 2017,
for the quarter period ended November 30, 2016.

A consolidated class-action complaint is pending against Rust-
Oleum Corporation ("Rust-Oleum") seeking to have a class certified
and alleging breach of warranty, breach of contract and other
claims regarding certain deck coating products of Rust-Oleum.  In
October 2016, the parties executed a settlement agreement. Upon
final court approval, Rust-Oleum will deposit $9.3 million into a
settlement fund in satisfaction of the claims.

The Company says it recorded the amount of the settlement in
accrued losses in its Consolidated Balance Sheets and reflected
the amount in other expense (income), net, in the Company's
Consolidated Statements of Income as of and for the fiscal year
ended May 31, 2016.

RPM International Inc. operates a portfolio of businesses and
product lines that manufacture and sell a variety of specialty
paints, protective coatings and roofing systems, sealants and
adhesives.  The Company manages its portfolio by organizing its
businesses and product lines into three reportable segments: the
industrial reportable segment, the specialty reportable segment
and the consumer reportable segment.


TRIDENT INDUSTRIAL: Faces Suit Over Labor Standards Act Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Abella at Louisiana Record reports that Trident Industrial
is facing a class-action suit from former employees who allege
they were misclassified from receiving overtime pay.

Noe Leija, Rodrigo Sanchez, Pablo Cruz Sanchez, et al,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated filed
a complaint on Jan. 31 in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana, Lafayette Division against Trident
Industrial LLC alleging that the housing contractor violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that they
regularly worked more than 40 hours per week but they neve
received overtime pay. The plaintiffs holds Trident Industrial LLC
responsible because the defendant allegedly misclassified them as
exempt from the overtime requirements and paid them a day rate,
regardless of the number of hours worked.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek an order
certifying this case as a collective action, award for all unpaid
wages, liquidated damages, penalties, legal interest, litigation
costs and all other relief that is necessary and appropriate. They
are represented by Kenneth D. St.P‚ of Kenneth D. St.P‚ LLC in
Lafayette.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana,
Lafayette Division Case number 6:17-cv-00221


SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Trial Set for Contamination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Jim Therrien at VT Digger reports attorneys for a group of
Bennington residents suing Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics over
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination of their wells and
property say they are pleased with the pretrial schedule released
on February 9.

"The primary point from our perspective was that the court acted
quickly on a discovery order, and we are anxious to begin," said
Emily Joselson -- ejoselson@langrock.com -- of Langrock Sperry &
Wool, of Middlebury, one of several attorneys from four firms
representing more than 160 households seeking to press a class-
action suit against Saint-Gobain.

Joselson and other attorneys for the plaintiffs said Judge
Geoffrey Crawford's order followed a conference on February 8 in
U.S. District Court in Rutland. The determination launches the
discovery phase of the multi-faceted suit, setting a number of
dates for required submissions or actions by the plaintiffs and/or
defense team, leading to a trial date of Oct. 1, 2018.

"We were happy with the schedule," said Patrick Bernal --
patrick@greenmtlaw.com -- of Woolmington, Campbell, Bernal & Bent,
of Manchester. "This was fair and reasonably aggressive."

David Silver -- dsilver@barrsternberg.com -- of Barr Sternberg
Moss Silver & Munson, of Bennington, said the trial date is only
slightly later than the plaintiffs had proposed. "Saint-Gobain had
proposed no [trial] date," he said.

The firm, which also has filed its second motion seeking dismissal
of the suit  --  following rejection of a first dismissal motion
in late December  --  seem to be pursuing a strategy of endless
delay, the plaintiffs' attorneys said.

"From our perspective, everything they are doing now, although
they profess otherwise, is to delay the case," Silver said,
contending that the second motion to dismiss "is without any
merit."

Joselson and Bernal said the arguments in support of the firm's
current motion are similar to those that were rejected in a class-
action suit by a judge in federal court in Albany, N.Y., relating
to PFOA contamination in Hoosick Falls, N.Y. That suit is filed
against Saint-Gobain and Honeywell International over industrial
sites that are the suspected source of the pollution.

"We were glad that the judge had come in [to the conference]
having read the decision [in the New York suit]," Joselson said.

"We were heartened that Judge Crawford is taking such an interest
in the case," Bernal said. "It is an important case."

Joselson said on February 9 that Saint-Gobain argued in its first
dismissal motion that the suit should be stayed while it mounted
an ongoing challenge in Environmental Court to Vermont's recently
set PFOA level of 20 parts per trillion for safe drinking water.

Now, she said, one of the arguments put forth is that the
plaintiffs haven't stated a claim upon which relief can be
granted, which the plaintiffs' attorneys view as essentially a
delaying tactic.

Joselson, along with Gary Davis --gdavis@enviroattorney.com -- of
Davis & Whitlock, of Asheville, N.C., took the lead in
representing the plaintiffs during the conference on February 8.

The company is represented by attorneys from Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, of New York City, and Downs Rachlin Martin,
of Brattleboro. Mark Cheffo, of the New York firm said on February
10 that the conference resulted in a fairly typical pretrial
schedule and he raised no objections.

Cheffo added that Saint-Gobain "absolutely doesn't intend to slow
down or delay" the progress of the suit, and the company looks
forward to having its side heard in court.

The plaintiffs' attorneys stressed that, while many people might
believe October 2018 is a long time to wait for trial, such a
class-action effort requires at least that much time, and will
require a ruling by the judge on whether the action should be
certified as a class-action suit.

Currently, the suit is being pressed by four named plaintiffs from
the area of contamination designated by the state, but other
households are being signed up for possible participation in a
class-action effort. The plaintiffs' attorneys said anyone who
might want to join the suit should contact one of the firms to
learn whether they qualify and what the process involves.

The focus of this suit is on damages concerning alleged negative
effects on property values; trespass, nuisance and assault issues
in the form of PFOA entering the soil and groundwater of plaintiff
properties; PFOA entering residents' bodies through exposure to
water or other methods, and emotional stress.

Also cited is the expense of any required medical testing and
monitoring, and the costs of filtering of well water supplies and
other interim measures to address the problems created, along with
the cost of permanently addressing the contamination, such as
through extension of town water lines to affected properties.

The suit is not focused on any health effects from exposure to
PFOA, which was determined to be related primarily to drinking
contaminated well water. However, individual suits are expected to
follow in state courts to address those issues.

The trial schedule as posted by the judge includes having initial
disclosures on class-action certification by Feb. 13 and initial
disclosures on the merits of the suit by March 13.

Other dates are set for disclosure of expert witness reports on
class certification, Aug. 1, and for the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, Oct. 1.

A hearing on the question of class certification is set for March
2018.

Discovery matters concerning the merits of the suit follow a
schedule from Sept. 1 through June 1, 2018, leading toward the
Oct. 1 trial date.

While preparation for the trial continues, efforts toward a
possible mediated settlement also will be ongoing. Such a process
is required and involves appointment of a neutral evaluator and
scheduled meetings between the parties.

The suit was filed in May 2016, after PFOA was found throughout
the area around the former ChemFab factory building in North
Bennington, which the France-based firm purchased in 2000. The
ChemFab plant, which used PFOA in its products, is considered by
state environmental officials to be the source of the
contamination in wells and soil.

The state responded in the spring 2016 by ordering testing of
wells and soil. That testing followed discovery of similar PFOA
contamination in Hoosick Falls, and Petersburgh, N.Y.

ChemFab operated in North Bennington from 1970 through 2000, when
it was purchased by Saint-Gobain, which shut down the operation
two years later and moved it to a New Hampshire plant.
PFOA was used nationally in the manufacture of Teflon, and used in
products like nonstick cookware, stain-resistant carpets and
fabrics, water repellent clothing, paper and cardboard food
packaging. The chemical has been detected in a number of states in
apparent connection to manufacturing facilities.

Medical studies have found suspected links to testicular and
kidney cancers, thyroid disease, high cholesterol and ulcerated
colitis, among other diseases or conditions, and Vermont health
officials have conducted blood-draw clinics to test nearly 500
Bennington area residents to determine the levels of PFOA in their
blood.

Environmental officials, meanwhile, have tested wells for PFOA.
Currently, the company is paying for carbon filtering systems at
contaminated well sites and has paid for bottled water, but no
agreement has been announced over whether the firm will pay to
extend the Bennington water lines to provide safe drinking water
on a long-term basis. That cost is estimated at more than $30
million.


SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: "Wilson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Wilson on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Schlumberger Technology Corporation and
Schlumberger Limited, Case No. 1:17-cv-00281 (D. Col., January 30,
2017), seeks to recover overtime wages and other damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate an oilfield services company
located at 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
      J. Forester, Esq.
      LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
      1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 749-1400
      Facsimile: (214) 749-1010
      E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com
              forester@l-b-law.com

         - and -

      Jack Siegel, Esq.
      SIEGEL LAW GROUP, PLLC
      2820 McKinnon, Suite 5009
      Dallas, TX 75201
      Telephone: (214) 706-0834
      Facsimile: (469) 339-0204
      E-mail: jack@siegellawgroup.biz



SEARS HOLDINGS: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $40 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Tribune/TNS reports that Sears Holdings Corp. on Feb. 10
said it would slash costs by at least $1 billion this year in a
restructuring that could mean more job cuts and store closings.

The retailer, headquartered in suburban Chicago, also said it was
writing down the value of the Sears name by $350 million to $400
million.

Sears previously announced plans to close 150 stores nationally by
spring, but the company said in a news release on Feb. 10 that it
would "actively manage our real estate portfolio to identify
additional opportunities for reconfiguration and reduction of
capital operations."

Sears also plans to consolidate the corporate and support
operations of Sears and Kmart into a new organizational model,
which may include job cuts, Sears spokesman Howard Riefs said.

"These decisions are never taken lightly, but they are a necessary
part of our efforts to become a more competitive retailer and to
return our company to profitability," he said.

Mr. Riefs said Sears also intends to identify unprofitable product
categories that could be cut to allow the company to focus on
categories where it wants to grow, including home appliances and
home services.

After signing a roughly $900 million deal to sell its Craftsman
brand to Stanley Black & Decker last month, Sears said it
continues to look for options for two other popular brands,
Kenmore and DieHard, and its Sears Home Services and Sears Auto
Centers businesses.

Fourth-quarter sales in stores open at least a year, while down
10.3 percent across both chains, were better than the early
seasonal results the retailer shared last month.  Shares were up
about 40 percent on Feb. 10.

"We believe the actions outlined will reduce our overall cash
funding requirements and ensure that Sears Holdings becomes a more
agile and competitive retailer with a clear path toward
profitability," Chairman and CEO Edward Lampert said in a news
release.

Earlier in the week, Mr. Lampert and Sears' board agreed to pay
$40 million to settle a shareholder class-action lawsuit alleging
Sears' plan to sell some of its best stores would benefit Mr.
Lampert at shareholders' expense.

Mr. Lampert and his hedge fund own about 56 percent of Sears and
hold a stake in Seritage Growth Properties, the real estate
investment trust spinoff that bought 235 stores, many of which it
leased back to Sears, for $2.72 billion in 2015.

The defendants, including Mr. Lampert, Sears board members and
Seritage, said the settlement was not an admission that the
lawsuit's claims are valid, according to court filings. Sears
spokesman Chris Brathwaite said the lawsuit was settled to avoid
the costs of drawn-out litigation.

"We have consistently taken the position that all Sears
shareholders were free to participate in the Seritage rights
offering.  The real estate was not sold to a trust controlled by
ESL (Mr. Lampert's hedge fund).  All Sears shareholders were free
to take a stake in Seritage equivalent to their Sears stake, and
98 percent did so," Mr. Brathwaite said in an email.

"A bulk" of the settlement money is going to Sears, he said.

The settlement is subject to approval by the Delaware Chancery
Court.


SHIRE US INC: Cummisford Anti-Trust Suit Transferred to D. Mass
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Sherri Cummisford, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Shire U.S., Inc., Shire,
LLC, Actavis Elizabeth LLC, Actavis Inc., John Does 1-100 and ABC
Corp. 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-10156 (E.D.
Wisc., November 23, 2016), was transferred to the U.S. District
Court of Massachusetts on January 30, 2017.

The action accuses Defendants of conspiring to fix, maintain,
and/or stabilize the prices of Intuniv, a non-stimulant branded
medication for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Shire U.S., Inc. is a New Jersey corporation with principal place
of business and headquarters located at 300 Shire Way, Lexington,
Massachusetts 02421. It marketed and sold Intuniv in Wisconsin and
elsewhere.

Actavis Elizabeth and Actavis Inc. develop, manufacture, market,
and sell generic pharmaceutical products in the United States.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allan Kanner, Esq.
      Conlee S. Whiteley, Esq.
      Layne Hilton, Esq.
      Marshall L. Perkins, Esq.
      ALLAN KANNER & ASSOCIATES
      701 Camp Street
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Tel: (504) 524-5777
      Email: a.kanner@kanner-law.com
             c.whiteley@kanner-law.com
             l.hilton@kanner-law.com
             m.perkins@kanner-law.com

             - and -

      David J. Stanoch, Esq.
      Ruben Honik. Esq.
      GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
      1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Tel: (215) 985-9177
      Email: rhonik@golombhonik.com

            - and -

      Denise L. Morris, Esq.
      Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
      Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
      John D. Blythin, Esq.
      ADEMI & O'REILLY LLP
      3620 E Layton Ave.
      Cudahy, WI 53110
      Tel: (414) 482-8000
      Fax: (414) 482-8001
      Email: dmorris@ademilaw.com
             meldridge@ademilaw.com
             jblythin@ademilaw.com

Shire U.S. Inc. and Shire LLC are represented by:

      Bryan S. Sandford, Esq.
      GODFREY & KAHN SC
      833 E Michigan St-Ste 1800
      Milwaukee, WI 53202-5615
      Tel: (414) 287-9363
      Fax: (414) 273-5198
      Email: bsandford@gklaw.com

             - and -

     Fred A. Kelly, Jr., Esq.
     Tarae L. Howell, Esq.
     NIXON PEABODY, LLP
     100 Summer Street
     Boston, MA 02110
     Tel: (617) 345-1319
     Fax: (866) 947-1649
     Email: fkelly@nixonpeabody.com
            thowell@nixonpeabody.com

            - and -

     John L. Kirtley, Esq.
     GODFREY & KAHN SC
     833 E Michigan St-Ste 1800
     Milwaukee, WI 53202-5615
     Tel: (414) 273-3500
     Fax: (414) 273-5198
     Email: jkirtley@gklaw.com

Shire LLC additional counsel:

     Joshua S. Barlow, Esq.
     NIXON PEABODY, LLP
     100 Summer Street
     Boston, MA 02110
     Tel: (617) 345-1319
     Fax: (866) 947-1649
     Email: jbarlow@nixonpeabody.com

Actavis Group is represented by:

     Christopher T. Holding, Esq.
     David Robert Fox, Esq.
     Sarah K. Frederick, Esq.
     GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP
     100 Northern Avenue
     Boston, MA 02210
     Tel: (617) 570-1679
     Fax: (617) 523-1231
     Email: cholding@goodwinprocter.com
            dfox@goodwinprocter.com
            sfrederick@goodwinprocter.com

            - and -

     Lester A. Pines, Esq.
     CULLEN, WESTON, PINES & BACH
     122 W. Washington Street, Suite 900
     Madison, WI 53703
     Tel: (608) 251-0101


SHIV SAKTI: Faces "Bianco" Suit Over Hotel Policies
---------------------------------------------------
Joseph Bianco and Tina Sierra, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Shiv Sakti Investment LLC d/b/a
Bonnie Lee Inn, and Does 1 through 100, all inclusive, Case No.
BC648781 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 30, 2017), arises out of the
Defendants' unlawful policy at their low-income residential hotel
requiring tenants to move, or check out and reregister, before the
expiration of 30 days of occupancy.

The Defendants own and operate a residential hotel located at 543
N. Broad Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90744.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gerald S. Ohn, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF GERALD S. OHN, APC
      1875 Century Park East, Suite 700
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310)407-8655
      Facsimile: (310)694-3049
      E-mail: gerald@ohnlaw.com

         - and -

      Yashdeep Singh, Esq.
      YASH LAW GROUP
      3 Pointe Drive, Suite 304
      Brea, CA 92821
      Telephone: (714)494-6244
      Facsimile: (714)406-2722
      E-mail: Ysingh@Yashlaw.com


SIRIUS XM: March 24 Deadline Set for Settlement Objections
----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Susman Godfrey L.L.P.
and Gradstein & Marzano, P.C. regarding the Lawsuit between Flo &
Eddie, Inc. and Sirius XM Radio, Inc.

If You Are An Owner Of A Sound Recording(s) Fixed Prior To
February 15, 1972 Which Have Been Performed, Distributed,
Reproduced, Or Otherwise Exploited By Sirius XM in the United
States Without A License Or Authorization To Do So From August 1,
2009 through November 14, 2016, You Could Get Benefits From a
Class Action Settlement.

What is this case about?

On August 1, 2013, Plaintiff Flo & Eddie, Inc. ("Flo & Eddie")
filed a lawsuit in California against Defendant Sirius XM Radio
Inc. on behalf of itself and a putative class of owners of sound
recordings fixed prior to February 15, 1972 ("pre-1972
recordings"), alleging that Sirius XM, without a license or
authorization, was performing, distributing, reproducing, and
otherwise exploiting those pre-1972 recordings in California as
part of its satellite and Internet radio services (the "Lawsuit").
The Lawsuit is known as Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc.,
Case No. CV13-05693.  The parties have entered into a settlement
to resolve the Lawsuit, and any and all actual and potential
claims by members of the Settlement Class.

Am I in the Settlement Class?

You qualify as a member of the Settlement Class if you are an
owner of a pre-1972 recording which has been performed,
distributed, reproduced, or otherwise exploited by Sirius XM in
the United States without a license or authorization to do so from
August 1, 2009 through November 14, 2016.

What are the Settlement Benefits?

If the Court approves the proposed Settlement, you will be
eligible to receive a share of a $25 million settlement fund, and
a royalty rate of 5.5% on future performances for a period of 10
years.  If Sirius XM loses certain appeals, Sirius XM will pay
more money into the settlement fund (up to $15 million more to be
distributed to Settlement Class Members); if Sirius XM wins those
appeals, the royalty rate on future performances will be reduced,
possibly to zero.  All Settlement Class Members who do not
properly exclude themselves from the Settlement Class will be
barred from pursuing lawsuits against Sirius XM for claims arising
from its performance, reproduction, distribution, or other
exploitation of their pre-1972 recordings during the Class Period.

What are my Options?

You have to decide now whether to stay in the Settlement Class or
ask to be excluded.

If you do nothing, you are staying in the Settlement Class.  As a
member of the Settlement Class, you will keep the possibility of
getting money or benefits that may come from the settlement.  But,
you will give up any rights to sue Sirius XM separately over its
performance, reproduction, distribution, or other exploitation of
your pre-1972 recordings.

If you ask to be excluded, you won't share in the money and
benefits of the Class Settlement.  But you keep any rights to sue
Sirius XM separately over its performance, reproduction,
distribution, or other exploitation of your pre-1972 recordings.
If you retain an individual attorney, you may need to pay for that
attorney.  For more information on how to exclude yourself, visit
www.pre1972soundrecordings.com.

If you wish to object to the settlement, you must do so in writing
before March 24, 2017.  If you wish to object to Class Counsel's
request for attorneys' fees and expenses, you must do so in
writing before March 24, 2017.

Where Can I get More Information?

This is only a summary. For more information about the Settlement,
visit www.pre1972soundrecordings.com. PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE
TO THE COURT FOR INFORMATION OR ADVICE.


SIRTEX MEDICAL: Refuses to Settle Sales Downgrade Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Robins, writing for Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
troubled cancer treatment company Sirtex Medical has rebuffed a
move to seek to settle a potential class action, in effect telling
the plaintiff "we'll see you in court".

Late in January, Sirtex received a letter and draft statement of
claim from law firm Portfolio Law, which foreshadowed the start of
a class action against the company over earlier forecasts of
sales, which the company has downgraded.

"In the letter, [Sirtex] was invited to enter into settlement
discussions with the plaintiff, pending commencement of the
representative proceeding.  Sirtex has declined that invitation,"
the company said in a statement to the ASX on Feb. 13.

"If the foreshadowed representative proceeding is commenced,
Sirtex will vigorously defend the proceeding."

On Feb. 13, Sirtex said it has been served with the "filed
statement of claim".

The legal action follows a forecast of double-digit sales of its
cancer treatment last August, which has proven to be wildly
optimistic.  Following weak December-half sales, it slashed the
full-year forecast to just 5 to 11 per cent.

Ahead of the downgrade, the company's then chief executive, Gilman
Wong, sold shares in the company, which led to his sacking last
month after an investigation into the sales by external legal
advisers.

With more than $100 million in cash sitting on its balance sheet,
a class action legal suit was thought to be only a matter of time
after the downgrade.


SOLAR CITY: Frank Fish Appointed Lead Plaintiff
-----------------------------------------------
District Judge Lucy H. Koh of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California denied as moot a request for
consolidation and appointed Frank Fish as lead plaintiff in the
case captioned, IN RE SOLAR CITY CORPORATION SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 16-CV-04686-LHK (N.D. Cal.).

Defendant SolarCity Corporation "provides solar energy systems for
commercial and residential use."  The other Defendants -- Lyndon
Rive, Brad Buss, and Tanquy Serra -- were officers of SolarCity
during the events alleged in the complaint.

The securities class action is brought "on behalf of persons and
entities that acquired SolarCity securities between May 5, 2015,
and February 9, 2016, inclusive (the Class Period).  Plaintiffs
allege that Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 through statements made in quarterly letters to investors.
The complaint alleges that the May 5, 2015 letter, the July 29,
2015 letter, and the October 29, 2015 letter all contain
statements that "were materially false and/or misleading, as well
as failed to disclose material adverse facts about SolarCity's
business, operations, and prospects."

On August 15, 2016, Plaintiff Joerg Muller filed the class action
suit, which was titled Mueller v. SolarCity Corp., et al., Case
No. 5:16-CV-04686-LHK. On the same day, August 15, 2016, a notice
was published in Business Wire that the suit had been filed as
required by 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i). The notice
advised putative class members that they had 60 days from the date
of the notice, until October 14, 2016, to file a motion to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

On October 7, 2016, Plaintiff George Nuckols filed a suit that
made similar class action allegations as Mueller in a case titled
Nuckols v. SolarCity Corp., et al., Case No. 5:16-CV-05806-LHK.

On November 4, 2016, the Court granted the parties' stipulation to
consolidate Mueller and Nuckols.  Mueller and Nuckols were
consolidated and re-captioned as In re Solar City Corporation
Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:16-CV-04686-LHK.

There are three motions pending before the Court in two
consolidated cases. The first is Richard Flynn and Neil Jubitz's
Motion for Consolidation, Appointment as Lead Plaintiff, and
Approval of Counsel. The second is Retail Wholesale Department
Store Union Local 338 Retirement Fund's Motion for Consolidation
of Related Cases, Appointment as Lead Plaintiff, and Approval of
Counsel. The third is Frank Fish's Motion for Consolidation, and
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff, and Approval of Counsel. Also
before the Court is Fish and Local 338's Stipulation Appointing
Fish and Local 338 as Co-Lead Plaintiff's.

In her Order dated January 25, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/eJ1Aw2 from Leagle.com, Judge Koh denied all three
motions to consolidate because on November 4, 2016, the Court
already granted consolidation. The Court appointed Fish as lead
plaintiff because he has the largest financial interest in the
litigation since he suffered losses of $1,563,260.03 as a result
of Defendants' conduct and has made a showing that he meets the
adequacy requirement of Rule 23 while the other plaintiffs have
lower asserted financial interests.

Joerg Mueller is represented by Avraham Noam Wagner, Esq. --
avi@thewagnerfirm.com -- THE WAGNER FIRM

Retail Wholesale Department Store Union Local 338 Retirement Fund
is represented by Robert Vincent Prongay, Esq. --
rprongay@glancylaw.com -- GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP -- Ira M.
Press, Esq. -- ipress@kmllp.com -- and -- Thomas Elrod, Esq. --
telrod@kmllp.com -- KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP

George Nuckols is represented by Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. --
jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- and -- Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ LLP

SolarCity Corporation, et al. are represented by Ignacio Evaristo
Salceda, Esq. -- isalceda@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH &
ROSATI


SONIC STEVENS: Falsely Marketed Plaintiff Vehicle, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quan Nguyen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Sonic Stevens Creek Inc., d/b/a and Does 1 through
500, inclusive, Case No. 17CV305721 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 30,
2017), alleges that the Defendants used deceptive representations
or designations of geographic origin in connection with the
Plaintiff's 2013 BMW 3281 S V1N WBA3C1C57DF43576221 engine and
refused to fix or compensate for the cracked engine.

Sonic Stevens Creek Inc. is engaged in the business of buying and
selling automobiles to the general public.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David E. Olsen, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF OLSEN
      3013 Wolscy Place
      Fremont, CA 94555
      Telephone: (510)371-9648
      Facsimile: (510) 404-5302
      E-mail: lawofFiccofoIscn@gmail.com


SPECIALIZED LOAN: Bid to Bifurcate Discovery in "Quinn" Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned THOMAS QUINN and THERESA QUINN, individually
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs, v. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 16 C 2021 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Elaine E. Bucklo denied the
motion filed by Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC (SLS) to bifurcate
class and merits discovery.

Thomas and Theresa Quinn brought as suit, individually and on
behalf of a purported class, against SLS for violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).  The Quinns' amended
complaint alleged that after they defaulted on their mortgage
loan, SLS began contacting them in an attempt to collect payment.
Among other things, the Quinns claimed that SLS sent "field
inspectors" to their home for the ostensible purpose of
determining whether the property was still inhabited.  In several
instances, inspectors visited the home while the Quinns were away
and left a door hanger at the residence containing the following
message: "AT THE REQUEST OF SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICE, AN
INDEPENDENT FIELD INSPECTOR CALLED ON YOU TODAY. PLEASE CONTACT
SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING AT 1-800-306-6062."

According to the Quinns, they called the number expecting to speak
with a representative about home inspections and instead were
connected to SLS's collections department.  The Quinns maintained
that this constituted a violation of section 1692e of the Act,
which prohibits the use of false, deceptive, or misleading
representations in attempting to collect a debt.  In addition, the
Quinns separately claimed that SLS violated section 1692c(a)(2) of
the FDCPA by communicating with them directly despite its
awareness that they were represented by counsel.

SLS denied that calling the phone number listed on the door
hangers connected consumers directly to SLS's collections
department.  It claimed to have evidence clearly showing that
after dialing the number, the phone prompts gave callers the
option of speaking with representatives regarding other issues.
According to SLS, this defeats the Quinns' FDCPA claims because it
refutes the Quinns' contention that the door hangers constituted
communications made "in connection with the collection of any
debt" as required by the statute.  SLS also claimed to have
definitive evidence that it was expressly authorized by the
Quinns' counsel to communicate with the Quinns directly, thereby
defeating their section 1692c(a)(2) claim.

SLS argued that if it is allowed to conduct limited discovery into
these issues, it will be able to obtain summary judgment on the
Quinns' individual claims and make it unnecessary to engage in any
further merits or class discovery.

Judge Bucklo pointed out that Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 provides that
"[a]t an early practicable time after a person sues or is sued as
a class representative, the court must determine by order whether
to certify the action as a class action."  The judge explained
that it is well settled that the issue of certification should
generally be resolved prior to addressing the merits of the
plaintiff's claims.  The judge also stated that Supreme Court and
Seventh Circuit cases have made clear that the 2003 amendments to
Rule 23 did not disturb the general rule that the merits are to be
addressed only after the issue of certification has been
addressed.

Further, Jude Bucklo was not convinced that bifurcation would
contribute to a more efficient resolution of the suit even if the
free-ranging precertification merits discovery that SLS seeks were
permissible.  The judge stated that, among other things,
bifurcating discovery may give rise to disputes over whether a
particular discovery request relates to the merits or to class
certification.

A full-text copy of Judge Bucklo's February 9, 2017 memorandum
opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/2GjoHD from
Leagle.com.

Thomas Quinn, Theresa Quinn, Plaintiffs, represented by Al Hofeld,
III, Law Offices of Al Hofeld, III, LLC, Hanan Erikat Van Dril,
Law Offices Of Al Hofeld, Jr., Llc & Lloyd J. Brooks, Consumer
Legal Group, P.C..

Specialized Loan Servicing LLC, Defendant, represented by Gregg M.
Barbakoff -- gbarbakoff@mauricewutscher.com -- Maurice Wutscher
LLP.


SPECTRUM: Class Members Could Get Up to $1,000
----------------------------------------------
Grady Trimble at WTSP reports that some Spectrum customers might
be entitled to $1,000 in damages, according to a class-action
lawsuit.

The suit, filed by LeavenLaw in St. Petersburg, claims some
BrightHouse customers were charged a $9.99 "WiFi Activation Fee"
when BrightHouse became Spectrum. They should not have been
charged this fee, because they were already customers and didn't
need anything activated, attorney Aaron Swift said.

"This type of a situation is the hallmark situation where you have
a business potentially systematically and routinely taking
advantage of Florida consumers, and so we want to fight on their
behalf," Swift said.

Spectrum declined an interview, but sent 10News a statement.
"Some former BHN Internet customers were inadvertently charged the
WiFi Activation fee when they transitioned to a Spectrum package,
due to a billing-code error," Joseph Durkin of Charter
Communications, Spectrum's parent company, said. "We apologize for
the inconvenience, and we proactively and automatically credited
any customer who was incorrectly charged and will communicate that
to those customers on an upcoming statement."

Just because customers who were charged have been credited doesn't
mean the lawsuit is going away.

"There's a saying in the law, which is, 'you can't unring the
bell,'" Swift said. "Just because their hand was caught in the
cookie jar, so to speak, with these articles and certain lawsuits,
even if they refund, that doesn't negate the bad acts that they
undertook, potentially to thousands of consumers across the
state."


SUMMIT TOOL: Faces Suit Over Misrepresented Tire Irons
------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Meisel at Law360 reports an Illinois resident filed a
putative class action in state court on February 9 alleging Ken-
Tool Company sold tire irons that are shorter than advertised,
therefore depriving customers of the torque they thought they
would be getting out of the tools.

Alejandro Reyes filed the complaint on behalf of anyone who
purchased tire irons from Ken-Tool Company that ended up being
shorter than advertised. The five-count suit alleges Ken-Tool
willfully represented their tire irons as longer than they
actually were, and as a result, received unjust enrichment from
customers.

"By providing a shorter tire iron than advertised, defendants
deprive consumers of torque that grows in strength in direct
proportion to the length of the tire iron," Reyes said in his
complaint. "Additionally, plaintiff and the class paid for more
steel than they received."

The tire iron Reyes bought in February 2016 -- one made for trucks
-- cannot be found on Ken-Tool's website, but Reyes claimed it was
advertised as being 41 inches long.

"However, in fact, the tire iron is substantially shorter than 41
inches long, as it measures 39 1/2 inches in length ... theyby
making the tire iron less useful," Reyes said.

Reyes said the length of a tire iron is a huge factor in a
consumer's decision to buy the product, and said he overpaid for
the steel used in the tire iron. Ken-Tool tire irons retail for
between $40 and $70, according to several online marketplaces that
carry the brand's tools.

"Acting as reasonable consumers, had plaintiff and class members
been aware of the true facts regarding defendants' tire irons,
they would have declined to purchase them, or they would have paid
less for them," Reyes said.

Reyes alleged Ken-Tool had violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, in addition to the consumer
fraud and consumer protection acts in every state in the U.S.

Reyes' other counts allege the company engaged in common law fraud
and fraudulent misrepresentation of the length of its tire irons.

"Defendants made, and still make, false statements of material
fact through their advertising for the tire irons," Reyes said.
"Defendants misrepresented and continue to misrepresent the actual
length of the tire irons and misrepresent that the tire irons are
longer than they actually are."

Representatives from neither party could be reached for comment
Friday.

Reyes is represented by Thomas Zimmerman Jr., Amelia Newton,
Sharon Harris, Matthew De Re, Nickolas Hagman and Maebetty Kirby
of Zimmerman Law Offices PC.

Counsel for Ken-Tool Company could not be determined on February
10.

The case is Reyes v. Summit Tool Company et al., case number
2017CH02025, in Cook County Circuit Court.


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: "Vigil" 2nd Amended Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge John G. Koeltl dismissed with prejudice the Second Amended
Complaint filed in the case captioned RICARDO VIGIL, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, v. TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC., Defendant, No.
15-cv-8211 (JGK) (S.D.N.Y.).

The defendant, Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., is a private
entity that collects biometric data for use in its video games,
"NBA 2K15" and "NBA 2K16."  The plaintiffs, Vanessa Vigil and
Ricardo Vigil, brought a putative class action pursuant to the
Class Action Fairness Act.  More specifically, Ricardo Vigil
bought and played NBA 2K15, and his sister Vanessa Vigil played
his copy of that video game.  The Vigils used a feature in the
video game to scan their respective faces to create personalized
virtual basketball players, exclusively for in-game play.
Although the Vigils did not contend that their face scans have
been disseminated, or used for any purpose, other than for playing
the video game, for which they gave consent, the Vigils contended
that Take-Two failed to comply with various provisions of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 Ill. Comp. Stat.
14/1 et seq., which sets forth disclosure, consent, and retention
requirements for private entities that collect, store, and
disseminate biometric data.

On January 15, 2016, Take-Two moved pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), and
Rule 12(b)(6), of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss
the Vigils' claims.  By Order dated July 1, 2016, the Court ruled
that the Vigils should be allowed to replead in light of the
Supreme Court's ruling in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robin, 136 S.Ct. 1540
(2016), and denied without prejudice to renewal Take-Two's pending
motion to dismiss.  The Vigils filed their Second Amended
Complaint, and Take-Two renewed its motion.

Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Take-Two argued that the Vigils do not have Article III standing
to pursue their claims under the Constitution.

The Vigils argued that the purported procedural violations of the
BIPA, without any allegations of additional harm, are sufficient
to confer standing.

Judge Koeltl found that none of the Vigils' allegations of
procedural violations, on their own, demonstrate a material risk
of harm to the BIPA's concrete data protection interest because
there is no plausible allegation that there is a material risk
that the Vigils' biometrics may be used in a way not contemplated
by the underlying use of the MyPlayer feature.  The judge found
that the purported violations of the BIPA are, at best, marginal,
and held that the Vigils cannot aggregate multiple bare procedural
violations to create standing where no injury-in-fact otherwise
exists.  Accordingly, Judge Koeltl concluded that the Vigils do
not have Article III standing to pursue their claims against Take-
Two.

Independent of Article III standing, Take-Two also argued that the
Vigils do not have a cause of action under the BIPA.  The BIPA
grants a private right of action to "any person aggrieved by a
violation" of the BIPA.  Take-Two interpreted "aggrieved" as
limiting the private right of action to parties that have been
injured by a statutory violation.  Take-Two therefore contended
that the Vigils have failed to allege an injury that could support
a cause of action under the BIPA.

Judge Koeltl found that the Vigils have not established an injury
attributable to an alleged procedural violation of the BIPA.
Accordingly, the judge held that the Vigils' claims must be
dismissed.

A full-text copy of Judge Koeltl's January 27, 2017 opinion and
order is available at https://is.gd/xybPP8 from Leagle.com.

Vanessa Vigil, Ricardo Vigil, Plaintiffs, represented by David
Phillip Milian -- dmilian@careyrodriguez.com -- Carey Rodriguez
Greenberg O'keefe, LLP, pro hac vice, Frank Hedin --
fhedin@careyrodriguez.com -- Carey Rodriguez Milian Gonya, LLP,
pro hac vice & John Christopher Carey -- jcarey@careyrodriguez.com
-- Carey, Rodriguez, Greenberg & Paul, LLP.

Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jed
I. Bergman -- jbergman@kasowitz.com -- Kasowitz, Benson, Torres &
Friedman, LLP, Aaron Harvey Marks -- amarks@kasowitz.com --
Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, LLP, Derek Flores --
dflores@irell.com -- Irell & Manella LLP, Henry Bowen Brownstein -
- hbrownstein@kasowitz.com -- Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman
LLP, Molly Russell -- mrussell@irell.com -- Irell & Manella LLP,
pro hac vice, Nathaniel Lipanovich -- nlipanovich@irell.com --
Irell & Manella LLP, Robert M. Schwartz -- rschwartz@irell.com --
Irell & Manella LLP & Victor Jih -- vjih@irell.com -- Irell &
Manella LLP.


TARGET CORP: 8th Cir. Remands Security Breach Suit
--------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit remanded
the case, In re: Target Corporation Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation, for further consideration of class certification.  The
Eighth Circuit also reversed the order of the district court
setting the amount of the appeal bond and remanded with
instructions to the district court to reduce the bond.

In 2013, Target announced a security breach by third-party
intruders that compromised the payment card data and personal
information of up to 110 million Target customers.  Some months
later, 112 consumer representatives initiated a class action
lawsuit against Target in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota.

The parties eventually agreed to settle.  Upon request from the
consumer-plaintiffs, the district court preliminarily certified a
settlement class defined as "[a]ll persons in the United States
whose credit or debit card information and/or whose personal
information was compromised as a result of the [Target] data
breach."  The court also preliminarily approved the parties'
proposed settlement agreement, which calls for Target to create a
$10 million settlement fund for the class, allows class counsel to
request fees of up to $6.75 million, which Target must pay in
addition to the $10 million fund, and requires Target to commit to
specific improvements in its data security practices, such as
appointing a chief information security officer, developing
safeguards to control identifiable security risks, and providing
security training to employees.

Between the district court's preliminary and final orders
certifying the class and approving the settlement, class members
Leif Olson and Jim Sciaroni each objected to the settlement.  The
district court overruled Olson's objection and issued final
certification and approval of the settlement.  When an appeal was
filed, the district court imposed a $49,156 appeal bond, which
Olson's counsel posted in full.

Olson challenged the class certification for lack of adequate
representation due to an alleged intra-class conflict.  Sciaroni
did not object to the certification but appeals the district
court's approval of the settlement agreement.  Together, Olson and
Sciaroni also challenged the district court's order requiring them
to post a bond of $49,156 to cover the costs of the appeal.

The Eighth Circuit found that the record provides an inadequate
basis for effective appellate review because the district court
failed to articulate its analysis of the numerous disputed issues
of law and fact regarding the propriety of class certification.
The Eighth Circuit accordingly remanded the case to the district
court with instructions to conduct and articulate a rigorous
analysis of Rule 23(a)'s certification prerequisites as applied to
the case, which must expressly evaluate the arguments raised in
Olson's objection.

The Eighth Circuit also reversed and remanded for the district
court to reduce the Rule 7 bond to reflect only those costs that
the appellees will recover should they succeed in any issues
remaining on appeal following the district court's reconsideration
of class certification.

A full-text copy of the Eighth Circuit's February 1, 2017 ruling
is available at https://is.gd/OyXdO7 from Leagle.com.

The case before the Eighth Circuit is captioned In re: Target
Corporation Customer Data Security Breach Litigation Jim Sciaroni,
Objector-Appellant, v. Consumer Plaintiffs, Plaintiff-Appellee,
Target Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. In re: Target Corporation
Customer Data Security Breach Litigation Leif A. Olson Objector-
Appellant. v. Consumer Plaintiffs, Plaintiff-Appellee. Target
Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. In re: Target Corporation
Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. Leif A. Olson, Objector-
Appellant. v. Consumer Plaintiffs, Plaintiff-Appellee. Target
Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. In re: Target Corporation
Customer Data Security Breach Litigation Jim Sciaroni, Objector-
Appellant. v. Consumer Plaintiffs, Plaintiff-Appellee Target
Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. In re: Target Corporation
Customer Data Security Breach Litigation Leif A. Olson Objector-
Appellant, v. Consumer Plaintiffs, Plaintiff-Appellee. Target
Corporation, Defendant-Appellee, Nos. 15-3909, 15-3912, 16-1203,
16-1245, 16-1408 (8th Cir.).

Plaintiff-Appellee is represented by Karl L. Cambronne --
kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com -- David Woodward --
dwoodward@wbbklaw.com -- Karen Riebel -- khriebel@locklaw.com --
Norman Siegel, Christopher Robert Walsh, Charles S. Zimmerman --
charles.zimmerman@zimmreed.com -- Vincent J. Esades --
vesades@heinsmills.com -- Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr. --
g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com -- Amanda R. Cefalu --
arc@andersonhelgen.com -- John A. Yanchunis, David Michael
Cialkowski -- david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com -- John Gordon Rudd,
Jr. -- gordon.rudd@zimmreed.com -- Bryan L. Bleichner --
bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com -- James Pizzirusso --
jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com -- Eleanor Michelle Drake, Brian C.
Gudmundson, Felipe J. Arroyo, Jennifer J. Sosa, Daniel C. Girard,
Ariana J. Tadler,

Defendant-Appellee is represented by Michael Allen Ponto, Wendy J.
Wildung -- wendy.wildung@faegrebd.com -- Patrick J. Kenny --
pkenny@armstrongteasdale.com -- Michael J. Agoglia --
magoglia@mofo.com -- Douglas H. Meal -- douglas.meal@ropesgray.com
-- Michelle Visser -- michelle.visser@ropesgray.com -- David Frank
McDowell, Jr. -- dmcdowell@mofo.com -- Fred B. Burnside --
fredburnside@dwt.com -- Harold J. McElhinny, Jack W. Londen --
jlonden@mofo.com -- Nancy R. Thomas -- nthomas@mofo.com -- Rebekah
Kaufman, Robert G. Flanders, Jr. -- rflanders@whelancorrente.com -
- Samuel James Boone Lunier, Sterling Arthur Brennan --
sbrennan@mabr.com

Objector-Appellant is represented by Robert C. Black, III --
rcblacklaw@aol.com


TENNESSEE: Shelby County Dismissed From Rape Kit Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Maria Hallas at Local Memphis reports that new developments in the
rape kit testing class action lawsuit against the City of Memphis.
Kits that have been sitting untested for years.

The victims will be able to go forward against the City of
Memphis. But not against Shelby County.

Judge Gina Higgins dismissed it entirely from the case.

"I want this city to be true and admit that they mistreated us we
was mistreated there is a whole lot of us," said Gwendolyn Tatum,
a victim who is suing the City.

Emotions ran high after the Court's ruling to allow rape victims
to go to trial against the City of Memphis for the backlog of
untested rape kits.

The City is not immune. The plaintiffs can go forward.  This is
what we waited on for a very long time, and the court is just
saying they are not getting out of the case, " said Daniel Lofton,
an attorney who represents the victims.

" It's been a nightmare, and I just want it over that's all I
wanted do is get it over because I have to keep reliving this,"
said Tatum.

It may be years before the case is over.

The judge did dismiss Shelby County from the case, saying it did
not have enough involvement in the backlog of rape kits to keep
the county in as a defendant.

Lofton says he will file an interlocutory appeal of that ruling.


TRANSAM TRUCKING: Plaintiff's Supplemental Disclosures Struck
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kenneth G. Gale of the United States District Court
for the District of Kansas granted Defendant's motion to strike
certain of plaintiffs' supplemental Rule 26 disclosures in the
case captioned, LARRY BLAIR and CHARLIE DAVIS, On Behalf Of
Themselves And All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs,
v. TRANSAM TRUCKING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 09-2443-EFM-KGG (D.
Kan.).

Plaintiffs filed their initial class action Complaint on August
21, 2009, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), the Kansas Wage Payment Act (KWPA), and the Kansas Minimum
Wage and Maximum Hours Law (KMWMHL). Defendant filed its initial
Answer on October 14, 2009. Plaintiffs were subsequently granted
leave to file an Amended Complaint, which they did on January 28,
2010. Thereafter, Defendant filed a Motion for a More Definite
Statement which was denied by Magistrate Judge Donald Bostwick on
June 7, 2010.

Plaintiffs were granted leave to file their Second Amended
Complaint and subsequently were allowed to certify the class. A
supplemental Scheduling Order was entered on September 18, 2015,
with a second supplemental Scheduling Order entered on August 31,
2016. The latter document includes a discovery deadline of
November 16, 2016, with supplemental Rule 26 disclosures to be
served 60 days before. That Order stated that the supplemental
disclosures "must identify all witnesses and exhibits that
probably or even might be used at trial.

In the motion, Defendant contends that the categories do not
comply with the second supplemental Scheduling Order or Rule 26(e)
and should be stricken. Defendant continues that they are
"severely prejudiced" by the language used in the categories.

In his Order dated January 25, 2017 available at
http://bit.ly/2ktanicfrom Leagle.com, Judge Gale found that the
disclosures are inappropriate. These categories serve only to
protect Plaintiffs and would be unduly prejudicial to Defendant.

Reginald Harris, et al. are represented by Sara T. Ballew, Esq.
-- sballew@mbradylaw.com -- BRADY & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE

            -- and --

      Teresa A. Woody, Esq.
      WOODY LAW FIRM PC
      3654 Belleview Ave,
      Kansas City, MO 64111
      Tel: (816)931-5919

Ronald Aguillard, et al. are represented by Mark A. Kistler, Esq.
-- mkistler@bradylaw.com -- Michael F. Brady, Esq. --
brady@bradylaw.com -- and Sara T. Ballew, Esq. --
sballew@mbradylaw.com -- BRADY & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE -- Teresa
A. Woody, Esq. -- sballew@mbradylaw.com -- WOODY LAW FIRM PC

            -- and --

      Athena M. Dickson, Esq.
      Eric W. Smith, Esq.
      Raymond A. Dake, Esq.
      Rik N. Siro, Esq.
      SIRO SMITH DICKSON, PC
      1621 Baltimore Ave,
      Kansas City, MO 64108
      Tel: (816)471-4881

TransAm Trucking, Inc. is represented by Brad K. Thoenen, Esq. --
bthoenen@sb-kc.com -- Brenda G. Hamilton, Esq. -- bhamilton@sb-
kc.com -- Frederick H. Riesmeyer, II, Esq. -- friesmeyer@sb-kc.com
-- Rachel H. Baker, Esq. -- rbaker@sb-kc.com -- and -- Shannon
Cohorst Johnson, Esq. -- sjohnson@sb-kc.com -- SEIGFREID BINGHAM,
PC


TYSON FOODS: Bernstein Litowitz Appointed Lead Counsel
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Timothy L. Brooks of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Arkansas granted a motion for
consolidation and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in
the four cases captioned, JONAH CHUNG, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. TYSON FOODS, INC.;
DONNIE SMITH; and DENNIS LEATHERBY Defendants. WILLIAM HUSER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Plaintiff, v. TYSON FOODS, INC.; DONNIE SMITH; and DENNIS
LEATHERBY Defendants. PATRICIA LALONDE, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. TYSON FOODS, INC.;
DONNIE SMITH; and DENNIS LEATHERBY Defendants. HAROLD VOELLINGER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Plaintiff, v. TYSON FOODS, INC.; DONNIE SMITH; and DENNIS
LEATHERBY Defendants, Case Nos. 5:16-cv-5354, 5:16-cv-5371, 5:16-
cv-5362, 5:16-cv-5340 (W.D. Ark.).

Plaintiffs in these cases were all shareholders of Tyson Foods,
Inc. (Tyson) during the time period from November 23, 2015 to
November 18, 2016 (the "class period"). Tyson is a publicly traded
corporation headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas that specializes
in producing chicken, beef, and pork products. Donnie Smith served
as the Chief Executive Officer of Tyson from November of 2009
through June 13, 2016. Dennis Leatherby has been the Chief
Financial Officer of Tyson since June of 2008.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 by making certain misleading representations,
statements, and material omissions in Tyson's Securities Exchange
Commission (SEC) filings, and elsewhere. These alleged
misrepresentations, in turn, supposedly caused investors to incur
substantial losses after the price of Tyson's stock fell
significantly.

On December 16, 2016, Hawaii ERS and Blue Sky, John Schodowski,
Lewis Miller and Patricia Lalonde filed motions for appointment as
lead plaintiff, approval of lead counsel, and consolidation of the
cases.

In his Opinion and Order dated January 25, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/sI4Mik from Leagle.com, Judge Brooks concluded that
common questions of law and fact permeate the four actions, and
that they should be consolidated to preserve the parties' and the
Court's time and resources. She also found that Hawaii ERS and
Blue Sky are the most adequate plaintiffs, and appointed them as
lead plaintiffs.  She appointed Bernstein Litowitz as lead counsel
because it is well qualified to serve as lead counsel.

William Huser is represented by Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM PA

Tyson Foods Inc., et al. are represented by Benjamin F. Burry,
Esq. -- bburry@sidley.com -- Dorothy J. Spenner, Esq. --
dspenner@sidley.com -- Jaime A. Bartlett, Esq. --
jbartlett@sidley.com -- and David F. Graham, Esq. --
dgraham@sidley.com -- SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP -- Marshall S. Ney, Esq.
-- mney@fridayfirm.com -- FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK LLP


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Richemond" Suit Sent to Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Darrin P. Gayles granted the defendant's motion to compel
arbitration in the case captioned RENEL RICHEMOND, Plaintiff, v.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-23267-GAYLES
(S.D. Fla.).

Renel Richemond has been working for Uber Technologies, Inc.,
since October 2014.  Richemond contended in his Complaint that
Uber failed to comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), by
not properly paying for overtime hours worked.  Richemond further
alleged that Uber "has been engaging in a pattern and practicing
of misclassifying employees as independent contractors," which has
led to Uber's "fail[ure] to provide proper compensation to its
employees including reimbursement of gasoline and vehicle
maintenance."

Uber argued that Richemond's "claims are subject to arbitration
and dismissal pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act" (FAA) based
on the "valid arbitration agreement covering his claims."
Richemond, in turn, argued that the arbitration provisions violate
the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and are unenforceable
under the FAA.

Judge Gayles found that the agreements between Richemond and Uber
require that an Arbitrator, and not the Court, decide the
threshold issue of enforceability and, if the arbitration
provision is valid and enforceable, adjudicate Richemond's FLSA
claims.

A full-text copy of Judge Ross' January 27, 2017 memorandum and
order is available at https://is.gd/FOSshk from Leagle.com.

Renel Richemond, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Maximillien
Georges-Pierre, Remer & Georges-Pierre, PLLC, Rainier Regueiro,
REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC.

Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Courtney Blair
Wilson -- cwilson@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson.


UNDER ARMOUR: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Maryland
--------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Mirabella, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reports that
shareholders have filed a lawsuit against Under Armour.

Under Armour investors suffered significant losses as a result of
what a shareholder's lawsuit called false and misleading
statements about the company's prospects.

The sports apparel maker and some of its officers misrepresented
the company's sales and growth in a drive to pursue competitors
Nike, Reebok and Adidas, according to allegations in a securities
fraud class action lawsuit filed on Feb. 10 in U.S. District Court
for Maryland.  It represents investors who bought Under Armour's
Class A and Class C common stock between April 21, 2016 and Jan.
30.

Defendants, including founder and CEO Kevin A. Plank and former
CFO Lawrence P. "Chip" Molloy, "failed to disclose that Under
Armour's revenue and profit margins would not be able to withstand
the heavy promotions, high inventory levels and ripple effects of
numerous department store closures and bankruptcy of The Sports
Authority," the lawsuit said.

Under Armour said in a statement it is aware of the claims and
find them without merit.

"Under Armour will vigorously defend the case," the company said
in a statement.

Under Armour's stock plummeted 26 percent on Jan. 31 after the
company reported weaker than expected sales and profits for the
last three months of the year.  The company blamed a sluggish
holiday season, a shifting retail landscape and merchandise
miscalculations for October-to-December sales of $1.3 billion,
which, while up 12 percent from a year earlier, fell short of the
quarterly gains of 20 percent and more it had reported for nearly
seven years.

The company also cut its sales growth target in half for this
year.

Mr. Plank sought to reassure investors during a Jan. 31 conference
call with analysts, saying he remained confident in the underlying
strength of the Under Armour brand as the company makes continued
investments in the fastest-growing parts of the business, such as
footwear, international sales and sales through Under Armour
branded stores and websites.

The lawsuit, which names stockholder and Georgia resident
Brian Breece as plaintiff, alleges that Mr. Plank "saw the writing
on the wall" and starting last April "began shifting the company's
capital structure by selling more of his stake to prevent any
individual loss, yet maintain control of the company."

The lawsuit filing capped a week during which the company faced
sharp criticism over Mr. Plank's comments about President Donald
J. Trump's pro-business philosophy.  The CEO, during a lengthy
interview on Feb. 14 on CNBC, said Trump "wants to make bold
decisions and be decisive" and that having "such a pro-business
president is something that's a real asset to this country."

Mr. Plank and other business executives sit on a manufacturing
advisory panel assembled by Trump that is working to develop
innovative ways to support American manufacturing.

A social media backlash against Mr. Plank's comments included
opposition from athlete endorsers including ballerina Misty
Copeland, actor Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson and basketball star
Stephen Curry, whose signature basketball shoes have helped propel
the brand's footwear sales.

Mr. Plank's comments drew fire in light of Trump's controversial
executive order temporarily banning travelers from seven Muslim-
majority countries.

On Feb. 10, Under Armour released a statement calling immigration
"a source of strength" and saying it opposes the administration's
travel ban.

"These are not new or revised values," Under Armour said on
Feb. 10.  "This is what we believe.  Under Armour and Kevin Plank
are for job creation and American manufacturing capabilities.  We
believe building should be focused on much needed education,
transportation, technology and urban infrastructure investment."

It was the company's second statement since Mr. Plank's CNBC
interview.  An initial statement said Under Armour hoped to see
fair trade, tax reform and an "inclusive immigration policy that
welcomes the best and the brightest and those seeking opportunity
in the great tradition of our country."


UNDER ARMOUR: April 10 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Under Armour, Inc. ("Under Armour") (NYSE:UA)
(NYSE:UAA) between April 21, 2016 and January 30, 2017. You are
hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the USDC for the District of Maryland. To get more
information go to:

http://www.zlk.com/pslra/under-armour

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com
or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972.
There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period Defendants
made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that
Under Armour's revenue and profit margins would not be able to
withstand the heavy promotions, high inventory levels and ripple
effects of numerous department store closures and the bankruptcy
of one of its large retailers; Under Armour instead continued to
promote itself as a growth company that would continue to develop
and market game-changing products.

If you suffered a loss in Under Armour you have until April 10,
2017 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky -- http://www.zlk.com-- is a national firm with
offices in New York, New Jersey, California, Connecticut, and
Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and
experience representing investors in securities litigation
involving financial fraud, and have recovered hundreds of millions
of dollars for aggrieved shareholders.


UNDER ARMOUR: April 10 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Gardy & Notis, LLP announces that it filed a
securities fraud class action lawsuit in federal court on behalf
of investors who purchased Under Armour, Inc. common stock between
April 21, 2016 and January 30, 2017.

The lawsuit alleges that, during the Class Period, Under Armour
and certain of its officers made false and misleading statements
and failed to disclose that Under Armour's revenue and profit
margins would not be able to withstand the heavy promotions, high
inventory levels and ripple effects of numerous department store
closures and the bankruptcy of one of its large retailers.
Instead, Under Armour promoted itself as a growth company that
would continue to develop and market game-changing products.
Defendants' false statements and/or omissions caused Under Armour
common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period.

The fraud was revealed on January 31, 2017 when Under Armour
released weaker-than-expected earnings for the fourth quarter of
2016, and the poor results were in fact tied to market factors,
such as department store closings.

If you purchased Under Armour common stock anytime between April
21, 2016 and January 30, 2017 and you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you may move the Court no later than April 10, 2017.
Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain a member of the proposed class. This action
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, and is captioned Brian Breece v. Under Armour, Inc., et.
al. (1:17-cv-00388).

To learn more about the lawsuit and your rights, please contact
Meagan A. Famer or Jacob E. Lewin, at 212-905-0509, or by email at
mfarmer@gardylaw.com or jlewin@gardylaw.com.

Gardy & Notis, LLP specializes in large, complex litigation in the
fields of securities, corporate governance, and mergers and
acquisitions. The attorneys at Gardy & Notis, LLP have served as
plaintiffs' lead counsel in some of the largest securities fraud
class action recoveries.


UNITED STATES: Immigration Rights Group Joins Travel Ban Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that an immigration rights group has
filed a petition to join a lawsuit by Washington and Minnesota
states against President Donald Trump's executive order banning
travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries.

The Northwest Immigrant Rights Project filed the petition on Feb.
10 in U.S. District Court in Seattle.

The group last month filed a federal class-action lawsuit against
Trump's order on behalf two U.S. citizens and a legal resident
trying to reunite with their children.  Plaintiff Juweiya Abdiaziz
Ali is a U.S. citizen living in Seattle who started the process
last August of bringing her son from Somalia. She says Trump's
order has made her worried that her son's visa process will be
indefinitely suspended.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Feb. 10 unanimously
refused to reinstate the order blocked by U.S. District Judge
James Robart in Seattle.  Judge Robart issued a temporary
restraining order halting the ban after Washington state and
Minnesota sued.


UNITED STATES: Lawyers on Travel Ban Suit Asks for Names of People
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad at New York Law Journal reports a federal appeals
court may have halted enforcement of President Trump's temporary
travel ban, but lawyers and judges in cases in New York and
Virginia have pressed on, demanding that the federal government
provide a list of names of those who were detained or removed
under the executive order.

The names are especially important in class actions challenging
the travel ban, in which the identities of potential class members
have been difficult to ascertain due to the chaos in the days
following the Jan. 27 executive order, language barriers and the
inability of lawyers to speak directly with immigrants who were
detained upon arriving in the U.S.

In a class action in New York, lawyers at Yale Law School and the
American Civil Liberties Union have brought a motion to compel the
U.S. Customs and Border Protection to turn over the names, citing
the government's repeated attempts to avoid complying with a court
order requiring such a list. The government responded with a
motion to dismiss the suit, arguing it's moot because the two
Iraqi men who petitioned the court have now been admitted to the
United States.

"The relief sought by petitioners is no longer meaningful:
petitioners are not being detained, and themselves agree that they
have in fact been admitted to the United States," the government's
lawyers wrote. "Moreover," they added, "although the petition
wants proactive relief 'to prevent such harms from recurring' any
such recurrences are conclusory and speculative."

In a separate case backed by the state of Virginia, U.S. District
Judge Leonie Brinkema ordered the federal government to produce a
list of names of those who "have been denied entry to or removed
from the United States" despite having permanent resident status,
an immigrant visa or a student or work visa. On Thursday, the
government had "provided the information ordered," according to a
spokesman at the Virginia attorney general's office. The list
hasn't been made public. Brinkema heard arguments on whether to
grant a preliminary injunction against the travel ban.

The push for names is moving forward in New York and Virginia as
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a federal
judge's nationwide injunction against the travel ban in a case
brought by the states of Washington and Minnesota.

"That order doesn't obviate the need for the list," said Amit
Jain, a law student intern at Yale's Worker & Immigrant Rights
Advocacy Clinic, who is working on the New York case. "We need to
know where potential class members are and make sure they haven't
been unlawfully removed from the country."
Obtaining a list could prove critical to the survival of the New
York litigation. "To the extent petitioners are trying to maintain
standing based on other similarly-situated individuals, they have
not identified anyone who has suffered the same injuries alleged
in the petition," the government wrote in its motion to dismiss.
At the same time, the government maintains that there is no need
to provide such a list stating, "the government has provided
sufficient information that there is no individual who would fall
within such a class."

The New York case was brought by two Iraqi citizens with immigrant
visas who were detained at John F. Kennedy International Airport.
Lawyers brought a motion to certify a class of potentially
thousands of refugees and visa holders from the seven countries
identified in the travel ban who were detained, or could be
detained, upon entering the United States. New York Attorney
General Eric Schneiderman has intervened in the case, citing the
impact the travel ban would have on the state's economy. In a
statement following Thursday's order by the Ninth Circuit,
Schneiderman said his office "will doggedly pursue our claims
against President Trump's unconstitutional and un-American order
in federal court here in New York."

A federal judge in Brooklyn last month granted the plaintiffs'
request for an emergency stay to the deportations. She also
ordered the government to provide a list of the individuals who
had been detained under the travel ban.

This week, plaintiffs lawyers filed court papers seeking to
enforce the order. They claim the government has produced no names
while insisting that many people were being "processed," not
detained. Government lawyers also have questioned the scope of the
order, arguing the court should exclude individuals they claim
voluntarily returned to their home countries but whom plaintiff
lawyers alleged were coerced into doing so.

U.S. District Judge Carol Bagley Amon of the Eastern District of
New York has scheduled a hearing for Feb. 24.

In the Virginia case, attorneys general from 16 states, including
California, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington and
the District of Columbia filed a brief supporting the state of
Virginia's motion for preliminary injunction. The federal
government opposed the motion this week, citing national security
interests and Virginia's lack of standing to pursue the case.


UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Keeps Ruling Blocking Trump Travel Ban
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that per curiam, if
there's a way to respond to a president who has taken aim at the
federal judiciary, it's to speak with one voice.

With the entire country watching, the unanimous U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Feb. 9 left in place a ruling
blocking President Donald Trump's executive order suspending
immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries.

Insisting that courts have clear authority to review the
constitutionality of executive branch actions, a three-judge Ninth
Circuit panel upheld a Feb. 3 ruling by U.S. District Judge James
Robart of the Western District of Washington who found the states
of Washington and Minnesota were likely to succeed in their
constitutional challenge to the executive order.

The per curiam decision from Ninth Circuit Judges William Canby
Jr., Richard Clifton and Michelle Friedland is the latest chapter
in the fast-moving cross-country legal fight over the Jan. 27
executive order that suspended immigration from Iran, Iraq, Libya,
Sudan, Somalia, Syria and Yemen.

The three judges wrote, "The states have offered ample evidence
that if the executive order were reinstated even temporarily, it
would substantially injure the states and 'multiple other parties
interested in the proceeding.'"

The panel held that the government wasn't likely to beat back the
states' claims that the executive order had violated the due
process clause of the Fifth Amendment.  The states have argued
that the order illegally denied re-entry and travel rights to
lawful permanent residents and visa holders without notice.  They
also claim it runs counter to the federal statute governing how
refugees seeking asylum are treated by the United States.

During a telephonic hearing before the Ninth Circuit panel on Feb.
7, DOJ lawyer August Flentje argued that Judge Robart's temporary
restraining order ran counter to a ruling from a federal judge in
Massachusetts who found that the executive order was a legitimate
use of the president's power to shape policy on questions of
immigration and national security.

The panel, however, took issue with the government's argument that
the president's decision was "unreviewable."

"Although our jurisprudence has long counseled deference to the
political branches on matters of immigration and national
security, neither the Supreme Court nor our court has ever held
that courts lack the authority to review executive action in those
arenas for compliance with the Constitution," the Ninth Circuit
judges wrote.

The panel also wrote that the states "raise serious allegations
and present significant constitutional questions" regarding
whether the executive order was intended to disfavor Muslims,
citing Trump's campaign season statements calling for a "Muslim
ban."

Ninth Circuit scholar Arthur Hellman at the University of
Pittsburgh School of Law said that the panel members didn't
confine themselves "to the four corners" of the executive order,
and took the president's public statements into account when
determining the overall intent behind the order.

"In a way, you can see that as a sort of warning signal to the
president that when he sounds off, it may hurt him in these legal
proceedings," Mr. Hellman said.

There was no sign of an immediate shift in the president's
communications strategy.  Tweeting shortly after the decision was
issued, Trump wrote, "SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION
IS AT STAKE!"

In the glare of public attention, the court turned around its
decision in just 48 hours.

A U.S. appeals court has upheld the stay on Pres. Trump's
immigration order. @MarciaCoyle fills us in on what may happen
next #PBSNews pic.twitter.com/bDT11rq773

-- PBS NewsHour (@NewsHour) February 9, 2017

"Pretty amazing to write such a careful and coherent 29 page
opinion in a couple of days," UC-Irvine law professor Rick Hasen
wrote in a tweet.  Just before the decision came down, Mr. Hasen
wrote, "Whatever the 9th Circuit decides on the merits, let us all
praise the court for its transparency, efficiency, and
accessibility."

Court watchers had speculated that the Ninth Circuit might issue a
split decision, at least on some of the issues at play.  During
oral argument on Feb. 7, Mr. Clifton, a George W. Bush appointee,
had questioned whether the executive order could really be
considered a Muslim ban, since, according to his calculations, it
only reached approximately 15 percent of the Muslim world.  He
also expressed concern about the scope of Judge Robart's order,
which applies the same protection to legal permanent residents as
it offers to individuals who have yet to begin the immigration
process.

Still Mr. Clifton joined a decision that fully upheld Judge
Robart's order.  In a portion of the opinion that bears
Mr. Clifton's fingerprints, the panel wrote, "Even if the TRO
might be overbroad in some respects, it is not our role to try, in
effect, to rewrite the executive order."


UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Hears Trump Travel Ban Appeal Arguments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Graham, writing for The Recorder, reports that haste makes
waste, in executive orders and appellate arguments.

Three Ninth Circuit judges seemed prepared to the eyeballs for the
Feb. 7 potentially historic arguments over President Donald
Trump's travel ban from seven Muslim-majority countries.  But
counsel for the Department of Justice and the state of Washington
-- albeit under the hardship of extreme time pressure -- struggled
to make their cases.

Four times the judges asked August Flentje, special counsel to the
U.S. attorney general, if the president could ban Muslims
explicitly without any review by the judiciary.  Four times
Mr. Flentje dodged the question.  He also was stumped when asked
for evidence that citizens from the seven countries pose a serious
threat of terrorism.  Instead, he explained, twice, that the
proceedings were moving too fast to marshal that evidence.

"You're saying that these proceedings are moving fast, but you
appealed to us" rather than build a trial record, Judge Michelle
Friedland told him. "So why should we be hearing this now if it
sounds like you're trying to say you're going to present other
evidence later?"

Solicitor General Noah Purcell of Washington, meanwhile, wasted
several minutes distinguishing between an appeal from a temporary
restraining order and a petition for mandamus.

"This is Judge Clifton.  Why should we care?" asked Judge Richard
Clifton, who like all three judges and counsel were appearing by
telephone.

Instead the judges peppered both sides about the merits of the TRO
blocking Trump's executive order, as some 137,000 people connected
to the Ninth Circuit's live stream of the arguments and many more
watched on CNN and reacted on Twitter.


"Anyone listening to [the arguments] [Tues]day comes away knowing
the three panelists were not 'so-called judges,' and neither was
Judge Robart," Hogan Lovells partner Neal Katyal tweeted,
referring to Trump's sobriquet for James Robart, the judge who
entered the TRO.

Mr. Katyal, a regular presence at the Supreme Court who is
representing Hawaii in similar litigation against the Trump
administration, praised both sides' arguments.  "Both advocates
deserve our thanks," he wrote.  "It's a tough biz."

It's especially tough when briefing is conducted over the weekend
and the case argued the next day with the nation listening.  It
was no doubt challenging for the Ninth Circuit panel too.  By
virtue of being assigned this month to motions duty, the three
judges got pulled into the international debate on security,
immigration and the separation of powers on similarly short
notice.

Judge Friedland is the most junior member of the 44-judge Ninth
Circuit, a former Munger, Tolles & Olson partner appointed by
President Barack Obama in 2014.  She served as presiding judge of
the Feb. 6 panel because the two other members, Clifton and Judge
William Canby, have taken senior status.

Mr. Flentje argued that Trump had ordered only a temporary pause
on entry from the seven countries -- Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan,
Somalia, Syria and Yemen -- due to the threat of terrorism from
individuals there.  "This is a traditional national security
judgment that is assigned to the political branches and the
president," Mr. Flentje said.

Judge Friedland immediately tried to pin down Mr. Flentje on the
evidence of terrorism and whether Mr. Flentje was arguing that the
court had no authority whatsoever to review Trump's order.

Mr. Flentje didn't answer so Judge Friedland asked again: "Has the
government pointed to evidence connecting those countries with
terrorism?"

Mr. Flentje noted that "these proceedings have been moving very
fast," and that Congress and the Obama administration previously
determined that those countries posed the greatest risk of
terrorism.

Judge Friedland tried one more time: "Are you arguing then that
the president's decision in that regard is unreviewable?"
After a five-second pause, Mr. Flentje said "yes," but then added
that there are "obviously constitutional limitations."

"What are the constitutional limitations that the government
acknowledges?" Judge Friedland pressed.

Mr. Flentje said the government was not conceding any limitations.
Judge Canby, an appointee of President Jimmy Carter who took
senior status in 1996, then chimed in.  "Could the president
simply say in the order, 'We're not going to let any Muslims in?'"
he asked.

"That's not what the order does here," Mr. Flentje responded.
"I know. I know," Judge Canby said.  "Could he do that?"

"That's not what the order does," Mr. Flentje repeated, adding
that he'd like to get to "one key point."

"Well, we'd like to get an answer to that question," replied Judge
Clifton, an appointee of President George W. Bush.

Mr. Flentje finally conceded that, under Supreme Court precedent,
a U.S. citizen with a connection to someone living in a Muslim
country would have standing to bring such a challenge, but not the
states of Washington and Minnesota, the plaintiffs in the case.

When it was his turn to argue, Mr. Purcell said the judicial
branch must serve as a check on abuses by the executive.  "That
judicial role has never been more important in recent memory than
it is today," he told the court.

But Mr. Purcell spent much of his argument bogged down in
procedural issues with Judge Clifton, who questioned whether
Washington had presented enough evidence to show a likelihood of
success on the merits.

"Do you deny that there is concern about people coming from those
countries, separate and apart from what their religion might be?"
Judge Clifton asked.

Purcell said Washington has plausibly alleged that Trump intended
to discriminate against Muslims, in violation of the Establishment
Clause of the Constitution.  "The case law is clear, at this stage
our plausible allegations are taken as true for assessing that
likelihood of success," he contended.

"That cannot possibly be true," Judge Clifton replied.  "We're
supposed to take your word for it?"

Mr. Friedland came to Mr. Purcell's rescue, asking him if
Washington has supported its allegations with exhibits.

"We've supported many of our allegations with exhibits, yes,"
Purcell said, notwithstanding that "we've had extraordinary little
opportunity to actually gather and present evidence."
That led Clifton to accuse Purcell of making the same excuse the
DOJ had.  "Don't tell us you need more time," he said.  "You're
the one that sought the temporary restraining order."

But Judge Canby pointed out that because the DOJ is appealing for
a stay, it bears the burden of proving a likelihood of success.
When Mr. Flentje returned for rebuttal, even Judge Clifton sounded
adverse.  He asked Mr. Flentje about Trump's campaign promise to
enact a Muslim ban and Rudolph Giulani's statement that the
executive order was a legal way of implementing it.  "Do you deny
those statements were made?" he asked.

Mr. Flentje said that even Judge Robart had said he wasn't going
to consider campaign statements.

Judge Clifton didn't sound convinced.  "We're all on the fast
track here.  Both sides have told us it's moving too fast," he
reminded Flentje.  "Either those kinds of statements were made or
they're not."


UNIVERSITY TOYOTA: Arbitration Ruling in "Hardeman" Suit Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the appellate case captioned University Toyota and University
Chevrolet Buick GMC, v. Beverly Hardeman and Vivian Roberts, No.
1151204 (Ala.), the Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the order of
the Colbert Circuit Court allowing Beverly Hardeman and Vivian
Roberts to pursue their claims against University Toyota and
University Chevrolet Buick GMC in arbitration proceedings
conducted by the American Arbitration Association (AAA) instead of
the Better Business Bureau of North Alabama (BBB), the entity
identified in the controlling arbitration agreements.

On October 29, 2015, Hardeman and Roberts filed a demand for
arbitration with the BBB, the dispute-resolution entity identified
in arbitration agreements they had executed when they purchased
their vehicles, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
individuals, based on the University dealerships' refusal to honor
the service contracts sold by the Jim Bishop dealerships, the
University dealerships' predecessors in interest.

It appears, however, that the BBB informed Hardeman and Roberts
that it did not conduct class-action arbitration proceedings, and
they accordingly withdrew their arbitration demand.

On December 2, 2015, Hardeman and Roberts filed a complaint in the
Colbert Circuit Court naming as defendants the University
dealerships and asserting breach-of-contract, conversion, and
unjust-enrichment claims.  Hardeman and Roberts also sought class
certification of their claims, asserting that over 100 individuals
had similarly been injured by the University dealerships' failure
to honor certain service contracts sold by their predecessors in
interest, the Jim Bishop dealerships.

On January 17, 2016, the University dealerships moved the trial
court to compel Hardeman and Roberts to arbitrate their claims in
accordance with the arbitration agreements they had executed when
they purchased their vehicles and accompanying service contracts.

Hardeman and Roberts thereafter filed a response opposing the
University dealerships' motion to compel arbitration, asking the
trial court to allow their action to proceed either in state court
or, in the alternative, in an arbitral forum other than the BBB,
i.e., one that would conduct class-action arbitration proceedings.

On May 19, 2016, the trial court entered an order directing that
Hardeman's and Robert's claims be sent to arbitration before the
AAA with the AAA arbitrator to subsequently decide whether class-
action arbitration was available to them.  On May 26, 2016,
Hardeman and Roberts did in fact initiate an arbitration
proceeding before the AAA.

The University dealerships appealed the trial court's order.

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's order, and held that
the trial court can compel arbitration only in a manner consistent
with the terms of the applicable arbitration agreement.  The
Supreme Court remanded the case for the entry of a new order
compelling Hardeman and Roberts to arbitrate their claims against
the University dealerships before the BBB if they wish to pursue
their claims.

Further, the Supreme Court held that Hardeman and Roberts have no
right to engage in class-action arbitration proceedings, because
the arbitration agreements they entered into contain no provision
authorizing the arbitration of class-action claims.  Accordingly,
the judge also held that the BBB's policy of not conducting class-
action arbitrations in no way renders the BBB forum unavailable to
Hardeman and Roberts.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's January 27, 2017 order is
available at https://is.gd/BH31bW from Leagle.com.


USANA HEALTH: April 14 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Feb. 13 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against USANA Health Sciences, Inc. ("USANA" or the
"Company") (NYSE:USNA) and certain of its officers.  The class
action, filed in United States District Court, District of Utah,
is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired USANA securities, seeking to recover
compensable damages caused by defendants' violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased USANA securities between
March 14, 2014 and February 7, 2017, both dates inclusive, you
have until April 14, 2017 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained
at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this action, contact Robert
S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980.  Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and number of shares purchased.

USANA Health Sciences, Inc. develops, manufactures, and sells
science-based nutritional and personal care products primarily to
reduce the risk of chronic degenerative disease.

On August 16, 2010, USANA announced that it had acquired BabyCare
Ltd. ("BabyCare"), a China-based manufacturing company that
develops and sells nutritional products primarily for infants.
Over the next six years, USANA steadily expanded BabyCare's market
presence in China.  In February 2013, the Company announced that
it had received official government approval from the Ministry of
Commerce People's Republic of China ("MOFCOM") for direct selling
activities in the provinces of Jiangsu and Shaanxi, and the
municipality of Tianjin.  In May 2016, USANA announced MOFCOM
approval for direct selling activities in the provinces of
Liaoning, Shandong, Shanxi, Sichuan, and Guangdong, as well as the
municipalities of Dalian, Qingdao, and Shenzhen.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that:  (i) the Company's BabyCare subsidiary had engaged in
improper reimbursement practices in China; (ii) these practices
constituted violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
("FCPA"); (iii) as such, the Company's China revenues were in part
the product of unlawful conduct and unlikely to be sustainable;
(iv) the foregoing conduct, when it became known, was likely to
subject the Company to significant regulatory scrutiny; and (v) as
a result of the foregoing, USANA's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On February 7, 2017, post-market, USANA disclosed that "[t]he
Company is voluntarily conducting an internal investigation of its
China operations, BabyCare Ltd. . . . focus[ing] on the compliance
with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act . . . and certain conduct
and policies at BabyCare, including BabyCare's expense
reimbursement policies."  USANA advised investors that the Company
had retained outside counsel to conduct the investigation and had
notified both the SEC and the U.S. Department of Justice of the
investigation.

On this news, USANA's share price fell $7.25, or 11.57%, to close
at $55.40 on February 8, 2017.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.


UNITED SERVICES: Court Hears Oral Arguments in Goodson Sanction
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Friedman, writing for Arkansas Business, reports that the 8th
Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments to determine if a
sanction will stand against attorney John Goodson of Texarkana and
four other lawyers found to have engaged in "forum shopping" in an
Arkansas class-action case.

The case involved an assumed class-action case against the USAA
insurance company that had been on the docket of U.S. District
Judge P.K. Holmes III for nearly a year and a half before
attorneys for both the plaintiffs and defendants agreed to dismiss
the case.  The day after the dismissal, in June 2015, the case was
refiled with a settlement agreement attached in Polk County
Circuit Court, where it was easier to obtain a quick settlement.

Judge Holmes concluded that the attorneys made the move to state
court to avoid his review of the settlement, which he said he
wouldn't have approved.  The settlement called for the plaintiffs'
attorneys to promptly -- within 10 days of settling the case --
receive $1.85 million, while $3.4 million was set aside for the
class members.  In the end, though, fewer than 5 percent of the
victims filed a claim, and the unclaimed money was returned to the
defendant, United Services Automobile Association.

In August, Judge Holmes issued an order that reprimanded
Mr. Goodson, who is the husband of an Arkansas Supreme Court
justice, and four other attorneys who were found to have abused
the court system for manipulating the case.  A reprimand is
considered a mild form of sanction.

Judge Holmes found seven other plaintiffs' attorneys involved in
the class-action case and three defense attorneys had abused the
court system, but their misconduct didn't rise to the level of bad
faith.  They were not sanctioned but have joined in the appeal of
Judge Holmes' order.

If Judge Holmes' order stands, it would set new rules for how
putative class-action cases are handled.

In the 40-minute oral argument on Feb. 7, Gregory Joseph of Joseph
Hage Aaronson LLC of New York represented most of the plaintiffs'
attorneys.  He argued that what the attorneys did was proper under
the federal rules and federal judges had not objected when a
similar strategy was used in other, similar cases in federal court
in Arkansas.

"This was the generally accepted view of the law," Mr. Joseph
said. "No one was evading federal review."

Judge Duane Benton, a member of the three-judge panel who heard
the case, noted that "this judge wasn't told" about the purpose of
the dismissal. Joseph said it wasn't required because the case had
not been certified as a class action at that point.

Judge Lavenski R. Smith also asked if keeping the case in Judge
Holmes' court for 17 months was wasting the court's time.  Mr.
Joseph said it wasn't, because Judge Holmes didn't oversee many
court proceedings as both sides attempted to reach a settlement.

Then Benton asked if Judge Holmes had been "played" by the
attorneys keeping the case in federal court, only to see it moved
to state court to approve the settlement.

"My clients wanted to be in state court" from the beginning,
Mr. Joseph said. The case against USAA was originally filed in
state court but moved to federal court by the defendants, as is
allowed under federal law.

Attorney Thomas Walsh of the law firm Bryan Cave LLP of St. Louis
represented the three attorneys for USAA, including Lyn Pruitt of
the Mitchell Williams law firm in Little Rock.

Judge Benton said it worried him that those attorneys who weren't
sanctioned were appealing, because it could create a "slippery
slope" for attorneys to appeal scoldings from judges.  "How do we
draw the line on what you get to appeal?" he asked.

Mr. Walsh said his clients have national law practices, and "their
reputation is at stake" if Judge Holmes' finding stands. The order
has "real-world consequences," Mr. Walsh said.

In an affidavit filed in June, defense attorney Stephen Goldman
-- sgoldman@rc.com -- said Judge Holmes' initial finding in April
that he would be sanctioned along with 15 other attorneys in the
case "has caused me considerable personal and professional
hardship."  Judge Holmes ultimately reconsidered and punished only
five attorneys.

Still, Mr. Goldman, a managing partner at Robinson Cole LLP of
Hartford, Connecticut, said that the ruling has damaged his legal
practice.  "I know of at least one case in which neither I nor my
firm was retained because of a concern about the publicity of the
decision and the effect it might have on a judge whom I did not
know."

During the oral argument, Mr. Walsh told the panel that the
defense attorneys were just doing what USAA wanted them to do --
settle the case in state court, where it would more likely be
approved quicker.

Judge Benton seemed to side with the defense in his questioning.
"The plaintiffs' lawyers are the ones that are messing with the
class," he said.  "The defense lawyer doesn't have a duty" to
protect the putative class members.

Ted Frank, director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute's
Center for Class Action Fairness in Washington, whom the 8th
Circuit appointed to defend Judge Holmes' order, said during the
argument that the attorneys dismissed the case in federal court
for an improper purpose, which was evading the court's oversight
of the proposed settlement.

Missing from the oral argument was any discussion of the terms of
the settlement, which Judge Holmes said he would not have approved
because it "benefited everyone but the class members."

Judge Benton asked "how do you even know there's a class" at the
time the case was dismissed.  "That's troubling to me."

Mr. Frank said the attorneys knew there were class members at that
time.  But the attorneys didn't mention that in their papers to
dismiss the case.

Judge Bobby E. Shepherd said that he was concerned about how Judge
Holmes could find bad faith for dismissing the case when other
judges had not.  "Is there at least enough question of lack of
certainty that counsel is protected in that situation?" he asked.

"Somebody had to be the first one to find this was improper,"
Mr. Frank said.  "And it was this judge.  And these people were at
the wrong place at the wrong time."

Mr. Frank said that if the 8th Circuit finds that the sanctions
are inappropriate, he still wants the judges to rule that forum-
shopping to evade federal scrutiny of class actions is
sanctionable in future cases.

In addition to Mr. Goodson, the reprimand applied to his law
partner, Matt Keil; Jason Earnest Roselius, a partner of Mattingly
& Roselius of Oklahoma City; R. Martin "Marty" Weber Jr. --
mweber@crowleynorman.com -- of counsel of Crowley Norman LLP of
Houston; and Richard E. Norman, a partner of Crowley Norman.

Several of the attorneys were at the oral arguments, including Mr.
Goodson.

Before the proceeding started, Joseph whispered to Goodson,
"You're going to be vindicated."

A decision will come later.


UNITED STATES: Court Adopts Health Dept's Corrective Action Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned GLENDA JIMMO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SYLVIA
MATHEWS BURWELL, Secretary of Health and Human Services,
Defendant, Case No. 5:11-cv-17 (D. Vt.), Judge Christina Reiss
adopted the defendant's corrective action plan and mandated two
additional requirements.

On January 18, 2011, six individual Medicare beneficiaries and
seven national organizations filed a class action suit in the
District of Vermont against the Secretary, alleging, among other
things, that the Secretary "impose[d] a covert rule of thumb that
operate[d] as an additional and illegal condition of coverage and
result[ed] in the termination, reduction, or denial of coverage
for thousands of Medicare beneficiaries annually."

The plaintiffs alleged this covert rule of thumb improperly
imposed an "improvement standard," whereby coverage for certain
home health care services was denied if a beneficiary's condition
had not improved.  The plaintiffs further alleged that because of
the improvement standard, Medicare contractors and adjudicators
were denying Medicare coverage merely because a patient was
unlikely to improve, or in retrospect failed to improve, even when
the patient needed skilled care to maintain his or her condition
or prevent or slow further deterioration.

The Secretary moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims on a number
of grounds, including that they failed to allege a plausible
ground for relief.  The court granted the motion to dismiss in
part and denied it in part.  Thereafter, without admitting
liability or any wrongdoing, the Secretary agreed to settle the
plaintiffs' claims in accordance with the terms and conditions of
the settlement agreement. The court approved the settlement
agreement at a January 24, 2013 fairness hearing under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(b)(2).

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the parties agreed to a
"maintenance coverage standard" which provides that "[s]killed
nursing services would be covered where such skilled nursing
services are necessary to maintain the patient's current condition
or prevent or slow further deterioration so long as the
beneficiary requires skilled care for the services to be safely
and effectively provided."

The settlement agreement required the Secretary to make certain
revisions to the Medicare Beneficiary Policy Manual (MBPM) to
reflect the maintenance coverage standard.  The settlement
agreement also required the Secretary to "engage in a nationwide
educational campaign" through the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services (CMS).

On March 1, 2016, after complying with the settlement agreement's
dispute resolution process, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
enforce the settlement agreement.  Among other things, the
plaintiffs asked the court to require the Secretary "to carry out
additional educational activities to address the inaccuracies and
inadequacies of the original [Educational] Campaign."

Thereafter, the parties negotiated extensively at arms-length and
in good faith to reach an agreed upon corrective action plan.
When they were unable to reach a consensus, each party submitted a
proposed corrective action plan accompanied by a memorandum
explaining why the court should adopt the party's plan.

The Secretary has offered to undertake certain educational
activities beyond those required by the settlement agreement in
order to correct the deficiencies the court found in the
educational campaign.  The plaintiffs offered a more expansive
list of educational activities and asked the court to order that
certain obligations be continuing in nature.

Judge Reiss adopted the Secretary's proposed corrective action
plan and ordered its completion on or before September 4, 2017.
The judge also ordered the Secretary's corrective action plan to
including the following two additional requirements:

     (1) the inclusion of a corrective statement disavowing the
         improvement standard and explaining the maintenance
         coverage standard; and

     (2) a national call that includes the corrective statement
         and the notice required by the court.

A full-text copy of Judge Reiss' February 1, 2017 opinion and
order is available at https://is.gd/CU96UA from Leagle.com.

Glenda Jimmo, KR, Miriam Katz, Edith Masterman, National Committee
to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, National Multiple
Sclerosis Society, Parkinson's Action Network, Paralyzed Veterans
of America, American Academy of Physical Medicine and
Rehabilitation, Rosalie McGill, United Cerebral Palsy, Kenneth
Roberts, Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association,
Inc., George Boitano, Plaintiffs, represented by Alice Bers, Esq.,
Center for Medicare Advocacy, Inc., pro hac vice, David J. Berger,
Esq. -- dberger@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,
P.C., pro hac vice, Gill Deford, Esq., Center for Medicare
Advocacy, Inc., Judith A. Stein, Esq., Center for Medicare
Advocacy, Inc., pro hac vice, Matthew R. Reed, Esq. --
mreed@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., pro hac
vice, Michael Kelly Benvenuto, Vermont Legal Aid, Inc., Toby S.
Edelman, Esq., Center for Medicare Advocacy, Inc., pro hac vice &
Wey-Wey Kwok, Esq., Center for Medicare Advocacy, Inc., pro hac
vice.

Health and Human Services Secretary, Defendant, represented by M.
Andrew Zee, U.S. Department of Justice, Steven Y. Bressler, Esq.,
U.S. Department of Justice & Tamra Moore, U.S. Department of
Justice.


VIVINT SOLAR: "Encarnacion" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rabell Encarnacion, et al. v. Vivint Solar Developer, LLC, Todd
Pedersen, Alex Dunn, David Bywater, & Mark Davies, Case No. 17-
03091 (Mass. Cmmw., January 30, 2017), is a class action brought
by the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees and
former employees of the Defendants, to recover damages, including
unpaid wages and treble damages, interest, injunctive relief,
reasonable attorneys' fees costs and any other relief pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for Vivint as a Direct Seller from
approximately March 2015 to July 2015, then again from
approximately late 2015 or early 2016 to June 2016.

The Defendants operate a solar energy company that operates in 15
regions of the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maria Mamum Scott, Esq.
      Thomas P. Delmar, Esq.
      KECHES LAW GROUP, PC
      122 Dean Street
      Taunton, MA 02780
      Telephone: (508) 822-2000
      E-mail: mscott@kecheslaw.com


VIZIO: Settles Smart Interactivity Class Action for $2.2MM
----------------------------------------------------------
Sapna Maheshwari, writing for The New York Times, reports that
Vizio, one of the biggest makers of internet-connected
televisions, agreed to pay $2.2 million to settle charges that it
has been collecting and selling viewing data from millions of TVs
without the knowledge or consent of the sets' owners.  The
charges, brought by the Federal Trade Commission and the New
Jersey attorney general's office, have some serious implications
for consumers and smart TV makers.

Here's what you should know:

What data did Vizio collect?

Vizio, which has sold more than 11 million internet-connected TVs
since 2010, and its data arm earns money by licensing people's TV
viewing information in three main ways, according to a complaint
from the agencies.

One is through audience measurement -- showing what programs and
commercials people watched, along with how and when they viewed
it.  Another is from gauging the effectiveness of advertisements,
including the ability to "analyze a household's behavior across
devices," using the IP address attached to all the internet-
enabled gadgets in a home.  That could mean tracking whether
someone visited a website on their laptop after seeing a fast food
commercial, or if an online ad motivated them to watch a TV show.
The third is by targeting ads to people on other devices, like
phones or tablets, based on what they watched on TV.

How did Vizio's software work?

The complaint says that Vizio has manufactured TVs since at least
February 2014 with software turned on by default that collects
"information about what a consumer is watching on a second-by-
second basis."  It also was said to have remotely installed the
software, a proprietary form of automated content recognition, or
ACR, software, onto TVs sold without it.  Data about pixels on the
screen are sent to Vizio servers and matched to a database of TV
shows, movies and commercials.  Vizio called the tracking "Smart
Interactivity," as ProPublica reported in November 2015, and
portrayed it as a feature for program suggestions.

When TVs were updated with the software, people were notified
through a brief pop-up, above, saying "Smart Interactivity has
been enabled on your TV," without disclosure on the data
collection.  In March 2016, once the FTC and the New Jersey
attorney general's 's office investigations were pending, the
complaint said that a new pop-up appeared that referred to the
data collection for the first time.

Who was buying the information?

Vizio did not provide names but says online it may share viewing
data with "authorized data partners including analytics companies,
media companies and advertisers."  Vizio is the second-biggest
smart TV brand in North America, after Samsung and before LG,
according to IHS Markit data.

People expressed their frustration on Vizio's Facebook page on
Feb. 7, with one person writing, "We should stop calling these
devices 'smart' and call them what they really are -- spies."

Just how specific was this data?

Viewing information was never paired with "personally identifiable
information such as name or contact information," Jerry Huang,
Vizio's general counsel, said in a statement.  But the agencies'
complaint noted that Vizio provided IP addresses to data
aggregators that would remove a person's name, but still match the
TV viewing habits to other personal information like "sex, age,
income, marital status, household size, education, homeownership
and household value."

Vizio, which filed for an initial public offering in 2015 that did
not happen, said at that time, it collected "up to 100 billion
anonymized viewing data points each day" from its TVs.

More Video: League: PACE defers cost of solar power installation
How can you opt out on your TV?

Vizio has information about how it uses "Smart Interactivity" and
"Video ACR" on its website and how to opt out.  It instructs users
to press the "Menu" button on their remote or open their HDTV
Settings app, navigate to "system," then select "Reset & Admin."
After highlighting "Smart Interactivity," they can press the
"Right" arrow and change the setting to "Off."

Vizio had to only pay a fine?

The company, based on a stipulated order, must delete data
collected before March 1, 2016 -- before it sent the pop-up on
data collection -- and "prominently disclose and obtain
affirmative express consent for its data collection and sharing
practices."

In an email responding to questions from The New York Times, Vizio
said that it had a new, prominent opt-in notice sharing
information about the collection of its viewing data, and that
"only users which 'accept' ACR data collection will be enrolled in
ACR data collection."

It's also worth noting that this order is separate from a class-
action lawsuit Vizio is fighting in California around the tracking
software in its TVs.  The company said in its email it planned to
"vigorously defend the class-action proceedings, and believe them
to be without merit."

Did Vizio make money doing this?

In Vizio's filing to go public, it said it had "yet to generate
meaningful revenue from" Inscape, its data arm.  It noted,
however, that demand from advertisers and media content providers
could give it access to "total global market spend on audience and
advertisement measurement services" of about $1.9 billion in 2014.
Vizio agreed to be acquired by the Chinese video streaming company
LeEco last year, but a spokeswoman said Feb. 7 that it was
"pending and has not been completed yet."

How about other smart TVs?

While this complaint is about Vizio, the FTC said in a statement
that "we always advise companies to review our settlements for a
better understanding of what the FTC Act requires."

This is also the first time that the FTC has alleged in a
complaint that individualized TV viewing activity counts as
"sensitive information," a category that includes Social Security
numbers, information about children and precise geolocation
information.  The FTC has recommended that consumers be given the
choice to opt into sharing sensitive data.

Chris Heinonen, a staff writer at The Wirecutter, a product review
site owned by The New York Times, said Vizio, while it is under
fire, was now being more transparent than competitors engaging in
the same data collection, as well as streaming services like
Netflix.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: GTA Car Owner Left Out of Two Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that Jacqueline Charlesworth is stuck.

She wants to get rid of her Volkswagen, after the company was
exposed for doctoring its emissions testing in 2015.  But a legal
loophole means she's left out of two massive class action lawsuits
against the car manufacturer.

Ms. Charlesworth, who lives in the GTA, isn't eligible for the
Canadian lawsuit because her car has an American VIN.  And she's
not eligible to be part of the American lawsuit because her car
was registered in Canada.

"I'm really stuck in between two worlds," said Ms. Charlesworth.

Ms. Charlesworth bought a used Volkswagen Jetta from a dealer in
Mississauga, Ont., in July 2015.  At the time, she didn't realize
that she had purchased an American model.

Two months later, it was revealed that Volkswagen had fitted many
of its vehicles with software to fool emissions testers.

'I want my money'

Ms. Charlesworth checked to see if her car was eligible to be a
part of the Canadian or American lawsuits against the company.

She learned that she couldn't take part in the Canadian lawsuit
because her car was from the U.S. But, she said, Volkswagen
offered her more than $13,000 as part of the American lawsuit.

Ms. Charlesworth said she was pleased with the offer and
anticipating the cheque, bought another car.

But two weeks ago, everything changed.  She got a letter from
Volkswagen saying her Jetta wasn't eligible for the settlement,
because it had been registered in Canada before the September 2015
cut-off date.

Ms. Charlesworth said she's frustrated -- she was counting on the
$13,425 to support her family.  She said she's been trying to sell
her Jetta on Kijiji, but nobody wants to buy what she calls a
"scandal car."

"I want my money.  That's it," she said.

"I don't want to be driving around a polluting car."

Ms. Charlesworth said she's contacted multiple lawyers, but has
not received a response.  She said she also hasn't heard anything
else from Volkswagen.

Lawyers say they will pursue claim

Volkswagen Canada has declined to respond to questions about
whether it plans to further compensate owners in this situation.
The company also has not immediately responded to inquiries about
Ms. Charlesworth.


In December, Volkswagen reached a proposed class-action lawsuit
settlement that would compensate 105,000 Canadian owners affected
by the emissions scandal. The total settlement is worth $2.1
billion.

David O'Connor -- dfo@royoconnor.ca -- a partner at Roy O'Connor
LLP, one of the consortium of firms working on the Canada-wide
class action against Volkswagen, said it's hard to know exactly
how many people are caught in the legal grey zone.

But he said 15 to 20 people have contacted law offices across
Canada with similar concerns.

After the initial settlement moves forward, Mr. O'Connor said his
firm plans to pursue the claim on behalf of people in
Ms. Charlesworth's position.

'It's very frustrating'

In the meantime, Ms. Charlesworth said she wants this legal
loophole closed.

"I don't want to have to wonder whether I'm going to get my money
or not," she said.

"I don't want to have to keep driving that car and just keep
waiting.  I have no communication from anyone. It's very
frustrating."


VOLKSWAGEN AG: EU Struggling to Impose Dieselgate Punishment
------------------------------------------------------------
AFP reports that a year and a half after the Volkswagen
"Dieselgate" scandal erupted, the European Union is struggling to
punish the Germany-based auto giant for emissions cheating and
ensure customers are compensated.

In the United States, where authorities first exposed the
wrongdoing, VW has already committed to pay $23 billion to
aggrieved customers to settle lawsuits in addition to repairing
the vehicles.

The Dieselgate scandal blew open when Volkswagen admitted in
September 2015 that it installed software devices in 11 million
diesel-engine cars worldwide that reduced emissions of harmful
nitrogen oxides when it detected the vehicle was undergoing tests.

The EU lacks the authority to fight VW.  Day-to day regulation of
the auto sector, including approving new car models for the road,
remains under the authority of national governments.

Other barriers include a political reluctance in car-making
countries to punish an industry that has put such a high
percentage of diesel-powered vehicles on European roads.

Manufacturing diesel cars helps employ millions of workers across
Europe -- either directly or indirectly.

According to EU data, the auto industry employs a total 12 million
people in Europe and accounts for 4.0 percent of the bloc's gross
domestic product.

"We have spoken a great deal on the issue," lamented Julie
Poliscanova, an activist with Transport & Environment, a Brussels-
based non-governmental organisation.

"But if you look for detail and concrete actions, unfortunately
Europe has not made much progress," she added.

Indeed, the European Commission, the executive of the 28-nation
bloc, appears helpless against Volkswagen even after more than
eight million of its incriminating vehicles made it to European
roads.

Vera Jourova, the commissioner for consumer affairs, has been
pleading with the German automaker to offer compensation to its
European customers, but so far without success.

In many EU nations, consumers have no recourse to US-style class-
action lawsuits and face weaker rules on defeat devices.

The strength of the Americans is "they have rules and they enforce
them," according to Christine Revault D'Allonnes, a socialist
member of the European Parliament who serves on a committee
investigating emissions from diesel engines.

The final version of a report from the committee will be voted in
the parliament in April.

A draft denounces the "bad management" of the commission and the
member states which allowed automakers to justify a long list of
exceptions and loopholes when being checked for pollutants.

But as far back as 2013, the commission's research unit noted
discrepancies in emission testing results depending on whether
they were done on laboratory simulators or on the road.

While the EU acknowledged that this indicated the possible use of
illegal defeat devices, Brussels did nothing.

After the scandal, the EU executive proposed new procedures closer
in line with real world driving, which are to be launched in
September this year.

But EU officials are despairing over the failure to make headway
with a proposal to centralise car-type approvals in Europe.

"I see no shift of attitude in the industry, but (neither from)
member state authorities for that matter," industry commissioner
Elzbieta Bienkowska said.

In December the Commission launched legal action against
authorities in seven EU countries, including Germany and
Luxembourg, for failing to crack down on emissions cheating.

The Commission is also pushing to obtain powers of imposing
penalties and monitoring both the industry and national
authorities who carry out tests.

"The idea that diesel is clean seems to have disappeared from
public discourse," Ms. Poliscanova said.

Karima Delli, a Greens party member of the European parliament,
welcomed the fact that Paris prosecutors have opened a probe into
Renault over possible emissions cheating because the consequences
cause harm to the general
population.

"Will there be condemnation for automakers who not only harm the
environment but also people? That's revolutionary," she said.

Researchers at NGO T&E estimated at 29 million the number of
polluting vehicles on EU roads, contributing to 72,000 premature
deaths a year linked to azote dioxyde.

In 2016, based on figures from the European Automobile
Manufacturers' Association, the share of diesel in western Europe
has declined slightly from 51.6 percent to 49.5 percent for new
registrations.

The ACEA president said European buyers had largely overlooked the
scandal.

In fact, the large-scale presence of diesel on European roads
certainly makes "much more difficult politically to have a
European response," Ms. Poliscanova said.


VOXX INTERNATIONAL: "Ford" Second Amended Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Ford v. VOXX International Corporation et al., Case
No. 2:14-cv-04183 (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Joanna Seybert on November 14,
2016, entered an order dismissing the case.  Judge Seybert held
that in light of Plaintiffs' failure to file a Second Amended
Complaint pursuant to the timeline set forth in the Court's
Memorandum & Order dated July 22, 2016, and the Electronic Order
dated September 21, 2016, the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is
dismissed with prejudice.

In a Judgment also dated Nov. 14, the Court held that:

     -- Plaintiff take nothing of Defendants Voxx, Patrick M.
        Lavelle, and Charles Michael Stoehr;

     -- Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint is
        granted;

     -- Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is dismissed with
        prejudice; and

     -- this case is closed.

The Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on January 9, 2017, for the quarter period
ended November 30, 2016, that on July 8, 2014, a purported class
action suit, Brian Ford v. VOXX International Corporation et al.,
was filed against the Company and two of its present executive
officers (collectively, the "Defendants") in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.  On July 16, 2015, the
judge approved the designation of the lead plaintiffs and counsel
for the plaintiffs.  On September 28, 2015, the plaintiff filed an
amended complaint which alleges the same claims as the original
complaint (that the Defendants violated the federal securities
laws by making false or misleading statements which artificially
inflated the price of the Company's stock and that purchasers of
the Company's stock during the relevant period were damaged when
the stock price later declined) under Sections 10(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act but expands the class period by five
months, from January 9, 2013 through May 14, 2014.  According to
the allegations contained in the amended complaint, the defendants
knew or should have known, by virtue of their roles and positions,
that their statements were false and misleading and the Defendants
were purportedly motivated because their conduct enabled Company
insiders to sell VOXX stock at inflated prices.

On November 25, 2015, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint for failure to state a claim. On July 22, 2016, the
judge granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint. The plaintiffs did not file a Second Amendment
Complaint by the Court-ordered deadline of October 4, 2016.

VOXX International Corporation is an international manufacturer
and distributor in the Automotive, Premium Audio and Consumer
Accessories industries.  The Company has widely diversified
interests, with more than 30 global brands that it has acquired
and grown throughout the years, achieving a powerful international
corporate image and creating a vehicle for each of these
respective brands to emerge with its own identity.  The Company
conducts its business through 18 wholly-owned subsidiaries,
including Audiovox Atlanta Corp., VOXX Electronics Corporation,
VOXX Accessories Corp., Audiovox Consumer Electronics, Inc., and
Audiovox German Holdings GmbH.


WAL-MART CANADA: Faces Suit for Selling Food Unfit for Consumption
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Kent at Edmonton Journal reports a Fort McMurray man has
launched a $10-million class-action lawsuit claiming he and other
people bought food from Wal-Mart Canada that was unfit for human
consumption.

Warehouse technician William Young bought eggs, sausages, energy
drinks, milk and water from the multinational retailer last May 25
to 29, according to a lawsuit.

Young claims he and other potential participants in the case
suffered abdominal cramps, diarrhea, headaches, fever and vomiting
as a result of using products from the Fort McMurray Wal-Mart
contaminated by smoke and toxins released by last spring's
wildfire.

In January, Alberta Health Services charged Wal-Mart with 174
violations of the Public Health Act for selling fire-contaminated
fresh and frozen products last May, the lawsuit says.

It contends the company was negligent, failed to properly recall
the products or remove them from sale, and still hasn't taken
responsibility for this inaction.

Wal-Mart failed to thoroughly test the material before it was
distributed to ensure it was safe and didn't immediately remove
any affected goods from the shelves once it discovered they might
be contaminated or warn the public.

Young filed the case on behalf of himself and anyone else in
Alberta who bought goods at the store and suffered illness,
emotional distress or financial loss.

No trial date has been set. None of the allegations in the lawsuit
has been proven in court.


WALMART: Faces Class Action Over Craft Beer
-------------------------------------------
Rick Armon, writing for Ohio Breweries, reports that a Cincinnati
man is hoping to cause some trouble for Walmart, accusing the
retailer in a new class-action lawsuit of fraudulently claiming
that it's selling its own line of craft beer.

Walmart made a splash last summer with the release of its private-
label Cat's Away IPA, After Party Pale Ale, Red Flag Amber and
'Round Midnight Belgian White.  The beers are made under the
Trouble Brewing brand at the Genessee Brewing Co. in Rochester,
N.Y.

The beers have come under fire by craft beer purists who argue
that they don't fit the true definition of craft.  The new
lawsuit, filed Feb. 10 by Matthew Adam in Hamilton County Common
Pleas Court, makes the same claim.

"Defendant's craft beer has never been a 'craft beer,' nor has it
been produced by a craft brewery," the lawsuit says.  "Rather, it
is a wholesale fiction created by the defendant that was designed
to deceive consumers into purchasing the craft beer at a higher,
inflated price."

The lawsuit asks for an injunction ending Walmart's ability to
advertise and label the beers as craft beer, along with an unnamed
amount of compensatory and punitive damages.


WALGREENS: Judge Nixes Suit Over Bottled Water Tax
--------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk at Cook County Record reports a Cook County judge
has put a lid on a class action lawsuit against Walgreens brought
by a man who claimed the drug store chain wrongly charged him and
others a 5 cent city of Chicago sales tax on bottled drinks, which
should have applied only to bottled water.

On Jan. 27, Cook County Circuit Judge Diane J. Larsen dismissed
with prejudice the complaint brought by plaintiff Destin McIntosh
against the Deerfield-based Walgreens Boots Alliance.

The original lawsuit had been filed last August. In that
complaint, McIntosh alleged Walgreens should be made to pay for
improperly charging the special Chicago city bottled water tax on
an assortment of other bottled beverages, including sparking
water, soft drinks, flavored waters and mineral waters.

McIntosh specifically claimed he bought sparkling water drinks
from Walgreens stores in Chicago "on multiple occasions in 2015,"
asserting he shopped at Walgreens stores in the Loop, the South
Loop, Rogers Park and Lakeview, near his home, his job and
friends' homes.

McIntosh conceded he did not keep his receipts from the purchases,
but asked the judge for discovery to use Walgreens records to
prove he had been wrongly charged by the retailer under the city's
Bottled Water Tax.

McIntosh asserted Walgreens' alleged overcharge violated the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Protection Act.

McIntosh noted his lawsuit had been spurred by news reports about
Walgreen's alleged improper collection of the tax. And while
Walgreens, in response to those news reports, had publicly
asserted the company had corrected the taxation problem, McIntosh
argued the company also should have sought to refund the allegedly
improper charges to its customers.

The lawsuit had asked the court to award unspecified "actual and
statutory damages," plus attorney fees.

In November, Walgreens asked the judge to dismiss the case,
arguing the charges had been printed on receipts McIntosh would
have received at the time of purchase, yet McIntosh had never
protested paying the tax until after seeing news reports about it.

Under this so-called "voluntary payments doctrine," presented in
case law in the 1985 Illinois First District Appellate Court
opinion in Lusinski vs Dominick's Finer Foods, plaintiffs in
McIntosh's position, who did not pay a tax under protest, can have
their claim barred if they cannot demonstrate "facts sufficient to
form a basis for protesting the tax under duress."

In its motion to dismiss, Walgreens argued that, "absent fraud,
misrepresentation or mistake of fact, 'money voluntarily paid
under a claim of right to payment and with knowledge of the facts
by the person making the payment cannot be recovered back on the
ground that the claim was illegal."

In her Jan. 27 dismissal order, Judge Larsen said she relied on
Walgreens' arguments under Lusinski to dismiss the case.

McIntosh was represented in the case by attorney Joseph Siprut --
jsiprut@siprut.com -- of Siprut P.C., of Chicago.

Walgreens was defended by the firm of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP,
of Chicago.


WELLS FARGO: Sued Over Non-U.S. Citizens' Loan Contract Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mitzie Perez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and California League of United Latin American Citizens
v. Wells Fargo & Co. and Wells Fargo, N.A., Case No. 3:17-cv-
00454-JCS (N.D. Cal., January 30, 2017), arises from the
Defendants' discriminatory and unlawful denying of individuals who
are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents, the right to
contract for a loan.

The Defendants own and operate a multinational banking and
financial services holding company headquartered in San Francisco,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
      Katrina Eiland, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 638-8800
      Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
      E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com
              keiland@outtengolden.com

         - and -

      Thomas Saenz, Esq.
      Victor Viramontes, Esq.
      MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND
      634 S. Spring St., 11th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90014
      Telephone: (213) 629-2512
      Facsimile: (213) 629-0266
      E-mail: tsaenz@maldef.org
              vviramontes@maldef.org


WESTERN DENTAL: Faces Suit Over TCPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado at Northern California Record reports that a
resident of Los Angeles County has filed a class action against a
debt collector over allegations it called her without her consent.

Victor Villela filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on Feb. 3 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California against Western Dental Services Inc. and
Does 1-10 citing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she
suffered damages from receiving several collection calls per day
from the defendant. The plaintiff holds Western Dental Services
Inc. and Does 1-10 responsible because the defendants allegedly
kept on calling the plaintiff using an automatic telephone dialing
system despite her request to stop calling.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks $500 in statutory
damages, $1,500 as treble damages, all legal fees and any other
relief as this court deems just. She is represented by Todd M.
Friedman and Adrian R. Bacon of Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman
P.C. in Woodland Hills.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case
number 2:17-cv-00886-CBM-SK


WESTERN HOCKEY: Judge Orders to Unseal Financial Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Stinson, writing for National Post, reports that the fight
over whether major-junior hockey players in this country should be
paid some sort of wage has been argued in court for a couple of
years now, but the question has been around much longer than that.

A landmark moment in the battle came in an Alberta court, when a
judge ruled that the financial statements of Western Hockey League
and Ontario Hockey League teams would be unsealed, as part of an
attempt to have a class-action lawsuit brought by former WHL
players certified.  The defence against paying players has always
been that the teams could not afford it.  These documents would,
finally, allow the public to know if that was true.

But the moment has ended up being rather less revelatory than
expected: now that the numbers are out, neither side can agree on
what they mean.

The financial statements themselves remain under a publication ban
that should be lifted last week, once certain personal information
is redacted, but it is fair to say that the plaintiffs -- the
former players -- are not all that pleased with what they have
been provided.  The teams have largely not provided formal
documents, such as tax returns, but internal statements that in
some cases amount to little more than a few columns of numbers on
a page.  If you asked me to provide income statements for the past
five years and I gave you a page with five numbers on it, you
would be right to be skeptical.

The defence, in this case the WHL, commissioned a report of their
financials from the consultancy KPMG, and the plaintiffs had a
forensic accountant, Smith Forensics, assess the report and the
underlying financials.

The whole exercise is attempting to determine if the teams would
be bankrupted, or close to it, if they had to pay their players
something equivalent to minimum wage for the hours they work.  The
main conclusion of the forensic report is this line: "It is not
possible to properly determine what the impact on the teams
individually or as a whole would be if they had to pay the players
minimum wage."  So, not a terribly successful exercise so far.

Smith Forensics says there isn't enough information to properly
assess the true earnings of the teams, or their actual expenses.
There is also a subtle indication that the league, and its teams,
weren't all that interested in providing a complete picture.  "It
appears that the skill-set of KPMG was greatly under-utilized due
to the inherent limitations associated with the assignment that
they were asked to complete," the report says. I am no accountant,
but that sounds like accountant trash talk.

There are other curiosities raised by the numbers provided.  If
the teams on average lose money every year, why is it that five of
them -- two OHL and three WHL -- have been sold in the past few
years for between $6 million and $10 million? Why would money-
losing teams not show a decline in value over several years of
reported losses?

There's another question that the forensic report doesn't ask, but
it was mine upon reading it: If the major-junior system is as
financially strained as the teams seem to indicate, why aren't the
leagues desperately trying to fix it?


YAHOO! INC: John Yanchunis Appointed Class Lead Counsel
-------------------------------------------------------
Kellie Cowan at FOX 13 reports that Tampa attorney John Yanchunis
of Morgan & Morgan and ClassAction.com will lead the lawsuit
against Yahoo for its massive data breach in 2016.

Yanchunis and Morgan & Morgan were selected among four law firms
that filed motions to serve as lead counsel in the class-action
lawsuit.

Yahoo's data breach is believed to be the largest breach in
history, with more than one billion Yahoo accounts compromised.

According to ClassAction.com, the case may be the largest consumer
class-action lawsuit ever, as it involves anyone in the world who
has ever used a Yahoo account.


YAHOO! INC: Bid for Summary Judgment in "Dominguez" Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BILL DOMINGUEZ, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. YAHOO!, INC., Defendant,
Civil Action No. 13-1887 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Michael M. Baylson
granted both Yahoo's renewed motion for summary judgment and
Yahoo's motion to exclude the plaintiff's experts.

Bill Dominguez, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
consumers, initiated the class action lawsuit against Yahoo to
challenge Yahoo's practice of sending unsolicited text messages to
cellular telephone numbers owned by individuals who never
consented to receive such text messages.

It was undisputed that Dominguez received text messages solely
because the previous owner of Dominguez's mobile phone number was
a Yahoo subscriber who affirmatively signed up to receive text
messages each time he received an email in his Yahoo email inbox.

Yahoo has consistently, without dispute, asserted it could not
"disarm" the system.  Yahoo denied liability and argued that the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) only prohibits
unsolicited automated telemarketing and bulk communications sent
via an Automatic Telephone Dialing System (ATDS), which means a
system that has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers
to be called using a random or sequential number generator, and
dial those numbers.  Yahoo contended that its system is not an
ATDS because the system lacks the capacity to store or produce
telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential
number generator.

In the initial phase of the case, the Court granted summary
judgment in favor of Yahoo, and Dominguez appealed.  In part due
to a new ruling by the FCC in 2015 regarding the TCPA that was
issued as the appeal was pending, the Third Circuit remanded the
case for further proceedings and factual development.

The FCC's 2015 ruling, currently on appeal before the D.C.
Circuit, addresses in the most comprehensive manner to date how
"capacity" fits into the definition of an ATDS.  The ruling
clarifies that the pertinent inquiry in determining whether
equipment qualifies as an ATDS is the equipment's potential
capacity to perform the functions described in the statute.

In his opposition to Yahoo's Motion for Summary Judgment,
Dominguez relied on four expert reports as providing evidence
which Dominguez contended creates a genuine issue of fact as to
whether Yahoo's system had the latent capacity to generate random
or sequential telephone numbers to be called.  Admissible expert
testimony can create an issue of fact to defeat summary judgment.
In response to Dominguez's proffered expert evidence, Yahoo filed
a Motion to Exclude all four experts.

Although Judge Baylson found that all four experts are qualified,
the judge, however, also found that their opinions are not
reliable and must be excluded.  Judge Baylson found that all four
of Dominguez's experts present opinions without testing the
viability of their hypotheses.

Further, given that Dominguez cannot point to any record evidence
that sufficiently links a latent capacity to generate random or
sequential numbers to the capacity to then dial those same
numbers, Judge Baylson held that even if the expert reports were
considered reliable and admissible, Yahoo would nevertheless be
entitled to summary judgment.  The judge found that the expert
reports do not create a genuine factual issue regarding the Yahoo
E-mail SMS Service's capacity to generate and dial random or
sequential numbers.

A full-text copy of Judge Baylson's January 27, 2017 order is
available at https://is.gd/jB2ejm from Leagle.com.

BILL H. DOMINGUEZ, Plaintiff, represented by DAVID A. SEARLES --
dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com -- FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C., GEOFFREY
H. BASKERVILLE -- gbaskerville@consumerlawfirm.com -- FRANCIS &
MAILMAN, JOHN SOUMILAS -- jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com -- FRANCIS
& MAILMAN,P.C., MARK D. MAILMAN -- mmailman@consumerlawfirm.com --
FRANCIS & MAILMAN, PC, LAUREN K.W. BRENNAN --
lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com -- FRANCIS & MAILMAN PC & JAMES A.
FRANCIS -- jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com -- FRANCIS & MAILMAN, PC.

YAHOO, INC., Defendant, represented by BRIAN T. FEENEY --
feeney@gtlaw.com -- GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP, LORI CHANG --
changl@gtlaw.com -- GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP, pro hac vice, WENDY
MANTELL, GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP & IAN C. BALLON -- ballon@gtlaw.com
-- GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP, pro hac vice.


* Future of Dep't of Labor's Overtime Rules Remains Uncertain
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Wilkinson, Esq. -- cwilkinson@orrick.com --
Andrea Milano, Esq. -- amilano@orrick.com -- and Amanda MacDonald,
Esq. of Orrick, in an article for Mondaq, report that on January
20, 2017, shortly after Donald Trump became the 45th President of
the United States, his Chief of Staff, Reince Priebus, issued an
Executive Memorandum mandating a 60-day freeze on published
federal regulations that have yet to take effect to allow Trump's
appointees time to review the regulations.  Although such action
is fairly standard during a change of administration, the impact
could be significant if certain regulations set to take effect in
2017 are delayed or ultimately replaced.  Regulations potentially
affected by the 60-day freeze include the Department of Labor's
("DOL") overtime and fiduciary rules, and the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission's ("EEOC") EEO-1 pay reporting
requirements.

DOL Overtime Rule

In May 2016, the DOL announced significant changes to the overtime
rules under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  As we've
previously blogged about, the overtime rules mandated that,
beginning December 1, 2016, the salary requirement for exempt
employees would increase by nearly double -- from $23,660 to
$47,476 per year.  Under these new rules, employees who earn less
than $47,476 would no longer meet the overtime exemption from the
FLSA, and would be entitled to overtime compensation for all hours
worked over 40 in a workweek.

The new overtime rules made headlines late last year when a
federal district court in Texas issued a preliminary injunction
enjoining its implementation.  The decision was issued on November
22, 2016, just days before the new rules were set to take effect.

Between the ongoing litigation over the legality of the overtime
rules and the recent 60-day regulatory freeze, the future of the
overtime rules remains uncertain.  Other than publicly advocating
a small-business exemption, Trump has remained non-committal about
the overtime rules and has not signaled whether he will ask the
Department of Justice ("DOJ") to drop its defense of the matter.
Notably, the DOJ has sought a stay in the ligation while the new
administration reconsiders its position.  As a practical matter,
this places employers in a difficult position.  Many employers
already implemented changes to comply with the new overtime rules
in anticipation of the December 1, 2016 effective date, by
increasing salaries, reducing workforces, cutting benefits, and
changing employees' schedules.  In addition, the language in the
Executive Memorandum could also muddy the waters. The Executive
Memorandum provides for postponing, for 60 days, published
regulations that "have not taken effect."  Employee advocates have
argued that, as the effective date for the overtime regulations
was December 1, 2016, the Executive Memorandum does not apply.
This hyper-technical reading would likely be rejected by a court.
And, the argument has no practical effect as the rule is enjoined.

DOL Fiduciary Rule

The Executive Memorandum, however, will not stop the fiduciary
rule train.  It became effective on June 7, 2016.  The fiduciary
rule, which is scheduled to be phased in starting April 10, 2017
through January 1, 2018, expands the definition of "investment
advice fiduciary" under ERISA to include persons who provide
investment advice or recommendations for a fee or other
compensation with respect to retirement accounts.  Under the new
rule, investment advice includes recommendations regarding the
advisability of buying or selling securities or other investment
property and recommendations as to the management of securities or
other investment property.

Being a fiduciary requires financial professionals to put their
clients' best interests above their own.  As a result, financial
professionals who earn commissions are required, under the new
rule, to provide clients with a Best Interest Contract Exemption
disclosing potential conflicts of interest, fees or charges to be
paid by the investor, and compensation the fiduciary expects to
receive in connection with recommended investments.  The impact of
the new rule on the financial services industry is significant due
to the potential for lost commissions and the additional expense
of complying with the heightened fiduciary standard.

Financial professionals are left to hoping that the new
administration will roll back the rule.  However, barring
extraordinary action by Congress, there may be little that Trump
can do on his own as the rule was promulgated through notice and
comment rulemaking.  Further, rolling back the rule does not
appear to be a high priority.  Trump has not taken a position
publicly on the fiduciary rule.  However, he generally supports
broad roll backs of regulations and, Anthony Scaramucci, one of
his key advisors, has publicly promised to repeal the fiduciary
rule.  Those in the financial services industry who have already
taken steps to comply with the new rules in anticipation of the
April 10, 2017 implementation date should continue their efforts
until they receive a clear signal from the administration or
Congress.

EEOC Revised EEO-1 Form

On September 29, 2016, the EEOC announced approval of a revised
EEO-1 form to collect pay data from employers with 100 or more
employees beginning with the 2017 report to be submitted by
March 31, 2018.   It is unclear what effect, if any, the 60-day
regulatory freeze will have on the pay reporting requirements
because, technically, the information collection procedures for
the form did not have an effective date.  However, as Trump has
already appointed a new EEOC Chair, Victoria Lipnic, signs point
to a rollback.

The revised EEO-1 form requires certain employers to submit
summary pay data, including the total number of full and part-time
employees employed during the year in each of twelve pay bands
listed for each job category on the EEO-1.  Pay data is based on
employees' W-2 forms.  The revised EEO-1 form does not require
employers to report individual pay or salaries. Additionally,
employers required to submit an EEO-1 form must report the number
of hours worked during the year by employees in each pay band.
According to the EEOC, the purpose of collecting pay data from
employers is to allow the EEOC to better assess allegations of pay
discrimination, but many fear that providing pay data without
context will fuel costly, meritless class action lawsuits.

Many predict that the future of the EEOC's pay reporting rule is
vulnerable under the Trump administration, while others believe
that Ivanka Trump's statements in support of equal pay may not
indicate a complete pullback of the pay equity focus.  Regardless
of whether the 60-day freeze affects the pay reporting
requirements, the issue of pay equity will be at the forefront of
legal issues facing employers in 2017. This blog will continue to
provide updates as new developments occur.


* Judge Neil Gorsuch May Cast Deciding Vote on Arbitration Issue
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Chapman, Jr., Esq. -- ron.chapman@ogletree.com -- and
Christopher C. Murray, Esq. -- christopher.murray@ogletree.com --
of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, in an article for
Mondaq, report that on January 31, 2017, President Trump nominated
Judge Neil Gorsuch of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals to the
Supreme Court of the United States.

As discussed in Ogletree's article "Supreme Court Jumps Into Class
Action Waiver Fight," the high court recently announced it will
consider this term whether the National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB) can ban class action waivers in employment arbitration
agreements under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) or
whether such waivers are protected under the Federal Arbitration
Act (FAA).  The current eight-member Court faces the real risk of
ending up in a 4-4 tie on this critical question, leaving it
unresolved and the Courts of Appeals split.

Judge Gorsuch, assuming he is confirmed and participates in these
cases now pending before the Supreme Court, could cast the
deciding vote and break the five-year-old deadlock between most
courts and the NLRB on the contentious class-action-waiver issue.

Although Ogletree recognizes "past performance is not necessarily
indicative of future results," the law firm reviewed Judge
Gorsuch's opinions touching on arbitration and related matters to
try to discern which way he might lean.  Here are some highlights:

In one case -- Genberg v. Porter, 566 F. App'x 719 (10th Cir.
2014) -- Judge Gorsuch authored an opinion rejecting an employee's
attempt to force his former employer's senior managers, board
members, and outside counsel to arbitrate his wrongful termination
claims against them.  Judge Gorsuch explained these individuals
were not signatories to the plaintiff's arbitration agreement with
his employer and agreed with a prior court decision that an
arbitration agreement can "be invoked only by a signatory of the
agreement, and only against another signatory."  Although Genberg
didn't involve class action issues, Judge Gorsuch's reasoning
would be an impediment to class arbitration, which often seeks to
include individuals in an arbitration who aren't parties to the
underlying arbitration agreement.  Judge Gorsuch's literal reading
of arbitration agreements is consistent with employers' attempts
to enforce class action waiver bans in those agreements.

Reflecting similar reasoning, Judge Gorsuch dissented in another
case involving arbitration -- Ragab v. Howard, 841 F.3d 1134 (10th
Cir. 2016).  There, the court's majority refused to compel
arbitration because the parties had entered not one but six
different arbitration agreements containing provisions the
majority found were in conflict and irreconcilable.  The majority
concluded the parties never had a meeting of the minds regarding
arbitration so no enforceable agreement existed.  Judge Gorsuch
disagreed. He concluded the parties clearly intended to arbitrate,
even if some of the non-essential details regarding how the
arbitration would be carried out remained up in the air. "Because
the plaintiff asked for and received assent to three arbitration
clauses he drafted and signed three others, all in a commercial
setting and while represented by counsel, I just don't see how he
can now seriously claim that he never intended to arbitrate--or
how we might rightly rescue him from the consequences of his
choice."  In his dissent, Judge Gorsuch emphasized the FAA's
requirement that arbitration agreements be treated just like other
contracts.  This is a critical line of reasoning used by employers
in defending class action waivers in employment arbitration
agreements.

In another case -- Howard v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., 748 F.3d
975 (10th Cir. 2014) -- Judge Gorsuch wrote an opinion chastising
the parties and the district court for failing to move quickly to
determine whether the parties had agreed to arbitrate.  After the
defendant moved to compel arbitration, the district court allowed
over 18 months of discovery and extensive motions practice on the
threshold issue of whether an arbitration agreement existed.  At
the conclusion of this drawn out process, the district court
denied the motion to compel, finding disputed facts made it
unclear whether an agreement to arbitrate was formed.  Judge
Gorsuch criticized the district court for failing to conduct a
summary trial as required by the FAA to resolve these fact
disputes promptly.  "The object [under the FAA] is always to
decide quickly -- summarily -- the proper venue for the case,
whether it be the courtroom or the conference room, so the parties
can get on with the merits of their dispute." Significantly, Judge
Gorsuch embraced the view that one purpose of the FAA is to foster
expedient dispute resolution.  That presumption underlies several
of the Supreme Court's more recent decisions approving class
action waivers in arbitration agreements outside the employment
context.  In those cases, the Supreme Court reasoned that the FAA
presumes arbitration will be bilateral since such arbitration is
far quicker and less complicated than class arbitration.

Also of note is Judge Gorsuch's dissent in N.L.R.B. v. Community
Health Services, 812 F.3d 768 (10th Cir. 2016).  That case did not
involve arbitration under the FAA, but it did raise questions
about the scope of the NLRB's authority in issuing new rules and
the limits of courts' obligation to defer to the NLRB.  In
Community Health Services, the Tenth Circuit reviewed a Board
decision to award certain employees full backpay as a result of an
improper reduction in their hours without deducting the amount of
income those employees' earned from secondary employment. This was
a significant change in the Board's approach.  It was well
established in the Board's prior cases involving unlawful
terminations that interim earnings should be deducted from backpay
awards to avoid giving the employee a windfall double-recovery.
The court majority deferred to the Board and enforced its new
rule.  Judge Gorsuch dissented, finding the Board's numerous
policy justifications for the changed law were outside its
authority under the NLRA. He concluded powerfully: "In the end,
it's difficult to come away from this case without wondering if
the Board's actions stem from a frustration with the current
statutory limits on its remedial powers -- a frustration that it
cannot pursue more tantalizing goals like punishing employers for
unlawful actions or maximizing employment."  He continued: "But .
. . frustration should not beget license.  In our legal order the
proper avenue for addressing any dissatisfaction with
congressional limits on agency authority lies in new legislation,
not administrative ipse dixit."

Notably, Judge Gorsuch's strong dissent in Community Health
Services is consistent with many of the objections employers have
made to the Board's class-action-waiver ban.  Critics of that ban
similarly chide the Board for deviating from 80 years of precedent
by seeking to solve perceived problems that are well beyond the
Board's limited jurisdiction to address.

Finally, some of Judge Gorsuch's comments on class actions in
general are relevant.  In 2005, he authored an article on
settlements in securities fraud class actions in which he observed
that "economic incentives" in "securities litigation encourage
class action lawyers to bring meritless claims and prompt
corporate defendants to pay dearly to settle such claims." That
same concern is one of the justifications for class action waivers
generally because they allow the parties to focus on the merits of
a claim rather than tangential litigation costs and risks.  For
example, in our brief on behalf of D.R. Horton, Inc. in its
challenge of the NLRB's class-action-waiver ban, we argued:

[T]he mere possibility of certification may impose such
substantial defense costs and risks on a defendant that it is
forced to settle irrespective of the merits of the underlying
claims. . . . Employers thus have a legitimate interest in
agreeing to procedures -- such as individualized arbitration --
allowing the parties to adjudicate the employee's claim on its
merits while also avoiding substantial costs and risks unrelated
to the strength of that claim.

The above decisions and commentary offer some window into Judge
Gorsuch's thinking on questions that will be at the heart of the
Supreme Court's upcoming class action waiver cases.  If Judge
Gorsuch's views on the role of arbitration under the FAA, the
problems posed by class actions, and the limits on the Board's
authority continue along this trajectory, employers may have
reason to be optimistic.

Ron Chapman, Jr. (shareholder, Dallas) and Christopher C. Murray
(shareholder, Indianapolis) represented employers in successfully
challenging the NLRB's class-action-waiver ban in the Second and
Fifth Circuits. Presently they are preparing an amicus brief on
this issue on behalf of multiple organizations to be filed in the
Supreme Court's pending cases, Murphy Oil, Lewis v. Epic Systems,
and Morris v. Ernst & Young.


* Taylor County to Pursue Class Action Against Drug Manufacturer
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicki Skinner, writing for Mountain Statesman, reports that the
Taylor County Commission met to discuss multiple items on their
agenda.

According to Commission President Orville Wright, the commission
has decided to pursue a drug manufacturer lawsuit, which is a
class action suit that stems from southern West Virginia counties,
where excessive prescription pills were distributed.

"It's a no-lose situation for the county," shared Mr. Wright.  "If
the lawsuit is beneficial, and the drug manufacturer is forced to
pay, it's money for the county.  If the suit goes in the favor of
the company, and no money is awarded, we will not have to pay any
lawyer or court costs."

According to Taylor County Prosecuting Attorney John Bord, the
suit is in the preparation stages, and the commission was only
provided with limited information, but more will become available.

"After having Prosecutor Bord look over the information we
received about the suit, we decided to go ahead and join in on
it," said Mr. Wright.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, West
Virginia leads the nation in fatal drug overdose rates.  West
Virginia's rate was 28.9 overdose fatalities per 100,000 people in
2010.  Most of those deaths reported were due to prescription
drugs.

Also during the Feb. 7 meeting, the commission approved the
purchase of gun lockboxes for Taylor County Sheriff's Department
cruisers.  They also approved a cost proposal for a locksmith for
the Sheriff's department, as well as, the rest of the Taylor
County Courthouse.

According to Mr. Wright, the commission has decided to unlock rest
rooms on the main level of the courthouse, for public use during
courthouse operating hours.

"I'm not sure why this hasn't been done before now," expressed Mr.
Wright.  "I think it will be beneficial to have it open. It only
makes sense to have an open restroom facility for individuals to
use, who are visiting the courthouse."


* Technology Brings Workplace Compliance Woes for Employers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eric N. Athey, Esq. -- eathey@mcneeslaw.com -- of McNees Wallace &
Nurick LLC, in an article for Metropolitan Corporate Counsel,
reports that when the use of email in business became popular in
the mid-1990s, the employment law implications seemed simple.
Employers were primarily interested in knowing whether they could
implement policies restricting employee email use to "business
purposes" and whether they could lawfully monitor usage to ensure
compliance with these policies.  As business uses of technology
have expanded over the past 25 years, these initial legal concerns
have spun into a multitude of compliance issues that permeate
every aspect of the employment relationship.  All attorneys who
represent businesses are wise to have at least a passing knowledge
of these technology-based compliance traps.  Although not an
exhaustive discussion, the following should demonstrate the
breadth of technology's impact on labor and employment law.

Hiring

You've just interviewed a great candidate, but before you draft
the job offer letter, you decide to Google her name to see what
sort of "web presence" she maintains.  There you may find social
media posts in which she discloses her age, religion, medical
history, feelings toward unions, etc. -- all of which you could
not have asked about during the interview.  Some social media
sites give her the ability to determine whether you've viewed her
web page.  Now, if you should decide not to hire her for other
legitimate reasons (e.g. a problematic criminal history report),
she could claim that the decision was based on unlawful
considerations that you identified during your web search. Your
search was not unlawful per se, but it may add fuel to a
discrimination claim.  To prevent this conundrum, employers should
have a protocol defining how background checks are conducted
during the hiring process.  These policies often prohibit hiring
managers from casually searching the web regarding candidates.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

Technology can present ADA challenges for employers in virtually
any industry.  For example, a customer service representative
claims that he needs to work from home due to an unusual
sensitivity to scents in the workplace -- or due to anxiety.
Twenty-five years ago, it's unlikely he could have performed the
essential functions of his position at home.  However, with
today's technology, it's often just a question of whether the
employer is willing to invest in an at-home workstation to
accommodate him.  Many factors affect whether this investment is
required as a "reasonable accommodation" under the ADA (e.g. cost,
size of employer, etc.) and the ultimate determination should be
made only after researching the options and engaging in an
interactive dialogue with the employee.  Telecommuting is not
feasible for all positions, but employers are well advised not to
reject technology-based requests for accommodations without
careful analysis and some interactive dialogue with the employee.

National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)

Over the past eight years, the intersection of technology and the
NLRA has routinely made headlines.  The National Labor Relations
Board has issued a series of opinions limiting the ability of
employers (unionized and non-union) to discipline employees for
social media posts that are critical of the employer.  In a
nutshell, the NLRA protects the rights of employees to engage in
"protected concerted activities" -- so, if two or more employees
engage in a public Facebook discussion about how horrible their
employer is, their activity is often protected by law.  Employers
are well advised to have written policies governing social media
and internet postings that not only observe NLRA concerns but also
address such issues as confidentiality, attribution and
professionalism.  However, social media is only one example of how
technology can create issues under the NLRA. Another prominent
issue is the extent to which an employer may prohibit employees
from using company-provided email to engage in union activities
(e.g. to organize a union meeting).  Yet another common issue is
whether a unionized employer has the right to unilaterally
implement technology that monitors employee behavior and to render
disciplinary action based on the data it generates. All of these
issues deserve careful consideration under the NLRA before moving
forward.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

Failure to understand the FLSA implications of business technology
can quickly generate substantial wage liabilities for employers.
Smartphones and other personal electronic devices are the primary
risks here.  By way of example, an hourly technical support
employee is expected to respond to questions from customers or
supervisors within an hour of when they were raised. If an
employer knows (or should know) that the hourly employee is
responding to these questions outside of normal working hours via
her smartphone, the employee must be paid for her additional work
time, perhaps at an overtime rate.  Notably, the U.S. Department
of Labor has developed a smartphone app that enables employees to
track their off-the-clock work for the very purpose of holding
employers accountable for these extra work hours.  Class-action
wage and hour litigation is a burgeoning industry for plaintiff's
attorneys, and wage claims for off-the-clock work is one of the
leading compliance problems underlying these lawsuits.  The
cautious employer will have a policy in place that strictly limits
off-the-clock work and requires employees to promptly report any
time they happen to work outside of their normal working hours.

Workers' Compensation (WC)

Closely related to FLSA concerns is the issue of workers'
compensation liability.  If an employee engages in off-the-clock
work by responding to customer calls and emails after hours,
chances are that an injury he sustains at that time would be
covered by workers' compensation.  The classic example here is the
sales employee who takes a call from a prospective customer while
driving.  In many jurisdictions, if the sales employee wrecks his
car while engaged in a work-related call, his injuries will be
considered "work-related" and compensable under WC laws. Since the
employee was acting in furtherance of the employee's business at
the time, his employer may also be liable for any injuries or
damages sustained by third parties.  Many employers have responded
to these liability risks by prohibiting the use of cell phones
while driving -- or perhaps requiring the use of hands-free
technology for such calls.

Employee Privacy

In most jurisdictions, employers are free to monitor employee use
of the company's electronic resources (e.g. email, internet) to
ensure compliance with policies requiring appropriate usage.  A
good usage policy will notify employees in clear terms that their
usage may be monitored and that they should have no expectation of
privacy.  A notification of this nature should reduce the
likelihood of "invasion of privacy" claims.  However, what if in
the course of monitoring business email, the IT department comes
upon highly sensitive personal information relating to an employee
-- perhaps an email exchange indicating that the employee was
recently diagnosed as HIV-positive.  Courts in several
jurisdictions have held that employers must immediately stop
reading once they realize they've found personal email
communications on company servers.  Reviewing the content of some
personal communications, after it's already been determined to be
of a personal nature, could support an invasion of privacy claim
in some jurisdictions.

Electronic Discovery

One common thread in the risk scenarios outlined above is that, in
each instance, there will likely be a traceable electronic history
that may support the employer's defense against liability -- or
blow it out of the water altogether.  With the advent of
electronic discovery, many unwitting managers have learned it's
hard to keep a secret in the electronic age.  A manager accused of
sex discrimination will have a difficult time disowning the
offensive jokes and comments that he's made about female
co-workers to his male friends via email.  The risks presented by
electronic discovery compel employers to develop and enforce well-
crafted technology policies that anticipate all of the risks
discussed above -- and to train (and periodically remind)
employees regarding appropriate usage.  Any good training program
will highlight the worst-case scenarios that electronic discovery
can easily make a reality.

The rise of electronic technology in the workplace has generated a
wide range of compliance risks that employers could not have
imagined 25 years ago.  As any labor and employment lawyer can
tell you, the issues outlined above just scratch the surface.
Technology presents new employment law issues nearly every month
and this is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.  Yet
for each technology-based compliance challenge, employers can
limit liability by proactively gaining an understanding of the
compliance risks presented by new technology, developing (or
updating) a well-reasoned policy that is tailored to their
operations, training (and retraining) employees, and vigilantly
enforcing their policies.  This disciplined approach will allow
employers to capitalize on their investment in IT, while avoiding
the legal landmines that could cause much more than a "frownie-
face emoji" for your clients.

Eric N. Athey is co-chair of the Labor and Employment Group at
McNees Wallace & Nurick, LLC.  He provides counseling and
representation to employers on a wide range of labor and
employment matters, including compliance assistance with laws such
as the Affordable Care Act, FMLA, ADA, OSHA, and wage and hour
laws.  He can be reached at eathey@mwn.com.
* Texas Civil Asset Forfeiture Issue Deserves Closer Look
---------------------------------------------------------
Herald Banner reports that Rockwall County Sheriff Harold Eavenson
had what seemed like an uncomfortable few days in the national
spotlight when he found himself in proximity to U.S. President
Donald Trump when Trump made what certainly appears to have been a
lame joke -- rather than an actual threat -- against a Texas
legislator who supports a bill that Eavenson and many Texas county
sheriffs oppose.

Most news accounts immediately fixated on President Trump's
unfortunate word choices, which we think was a mistake.

The subject was civil asset forfeiture, near and dear to the heart
of many sheriffs and chiefs of police but controversial in both
its intent and its application.

Broadly speaking, civil asset forfeiture gives law enforcement
agencies the authority to seize personal property they feel may
have been purchased with money gained from the commission of a
crime or may have been used in the commission of a crime.

No court order is required.  No actual evidence, other the
arresting officer's opinion that probable cause exists, is often
required. While "innocent until proven guilty" is a cornerstone of
the American judicial system, persons who've had property seized
by police are required to go to court and (basically) prove their
innocence in order to get it back.

A massive upturn in the popularity of this practice followed the
1984 passage by Congress of an omnibus crime bill that established
a revenue-sharing arrangement for police after seized assets are
declared to be government property.  The law enforcement agency
making the bust can often collect as much as 70 percent of the
impounded cash or proceeds from the sale of seized property.

Sheriffs, Eavenson among them, like to praise civil asset
forfeiture as a valuable tool against international drug crime.
Sometimes, it can be.  In the 1990s, a Colorado ski condo was
seized by police and then successfully tied to a Colombian cocaine
operation.

In practice, however, this is the exception rather than the rule.

In 2014, for example, police in the city of Dallas executed 357
seizures of cash under this authority.  Only 23 percent of these
seizures were over $5,000 and 61 percent were under $2,000.

Nationally, about 30 percent of property seizures are eventually
contested in court, a number we feel might be significantly higher
if the cost of going to court weren't so high.   Many property
owners probably just do the math and determine that it isn't worth
$4,000 in legal expenses to regain possession of a $3,000
automobile.

Large-scale abuses of this authority are also on record in Texas
and elsewhere.  In 2012, the Shelby County city of Tenaha reached
an out-of-court settlement in a class action lawsuit in which the
plaintiffs successfully asserted that Tenaha police (in
cooperation with a county prosecutor) were basically using asset
forfeiture as a shakedown racket against anyone unlucky enough to
be driving through town at the wrong time.

Revenue from asset forfeitures has a major component of many
police and sheriff's office budgets.  If an actual conviction were
required in order for property to be impounded -- the fear
Eavenson expressed to Trump -- that revenue might shrink and
additional tax money might need to be found for police, which is a
reason many city and county administrators tend to side with their
lawmen.

It's an unusual issue in that there is no clear liberal or
conservative position.  Key donors to a national lobbying group
working to limit asset forfeiture include both the Koch brothers,
ultra-conservative energy barons, and the American Civil Liberties
Union.  The unnamed Texas state senator who drew Eavenson's
criticism was likely Sen. Konni Burton, a Republican from
Colleyville who has a proposed a bill that would require a
criminal conviction before asset forfeiture can take place.

Ohio, North Carolina and Nebraska, three fairly conservative
states, have passed similar bills.

The debate over asset forfeiture isn't anywhere near as simple as
Eavenson and Trump may wish it to be.  While it can be a valuable
tool for police, it has been abused and often has police walking
dangerously close to the Bill of Rights' guarantee against
unreasonable search and seizure.  The issue deserves careful study
in Austin, not derisive snickering in Washington.

Between the ongoing litigation over the legality of the overtime
rules and the recent 60-day regulatory freeze, the future of the
overtime rules remains uncertain.  Other than publicly advocating



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravantefor, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2017. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *